|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 16, 2023 23:47:21 GMT
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. She experienced very minor growth, yes. Not something to write home about.
It's her name on the poster, but James McAvoy's character eats up more of the plot. Which I'm sure appealed to certain folks who liked seeing the woman lead spend most of her time getting beaten up and tortured rather than do anything.
She wouldn't have done either if not for her BF and Waltz paving the way for her. And "Born Sexy Yesterday" still needs to be brought up, even if I was the only one here to see it.
In the sequel, after Krasinski did everything to get her there. That colors the entire series.
That Creed wasn't called SJW because the title character couldn't do anything on his own and needed an old white guy to accomplish anything.
And her other appearances are simple fanservice, as her actual role and impact on the series was 1 adventure she was never remembered for.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 16, 2023 23:50:46 GMT
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. And the way it's used in storytelling is the "overall plan" method, despite what the Grifters say. They deliberately misrepresent how the term "Agenda" relates to storytelling because they want to appeal to the conspiracy crowd.
I never had a Professor say that a real story could do without an Agenda/Plan.
He can say he didn't set out to, but he still did regardless. Go read "Ravage 2099" and tell me it's not preaching.
The Agenda/Plan in that story is plain to see, and that's quite political. There's more to left/right/center than what FOX says.
Yes, indeed. Quite misogynistic and anti-woman.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 16, 2023 23:51:37 GMT
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. He made his bed, now he can lie in it.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 16, 2023 23:52:04 GMT
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. If someone goes after my family, I don't let it slide.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 16, 2023 23:52:49 GMT
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. I simply realized that they weren't interested in being conciliatory and decided to play by their rules. Fair is fair.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Feb 17, 2023 0:18:21 GMT
When they call your name, bеtter run and hide Tell you you'rе insane, you believe their lies I'm not gettin' out, no, I'm not gettin' out alive! I'm not gettin' out 'cause I'm patient number nine!
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 18, 2023 3:34:57 GMT
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. She experienced very minor growth, yes. Not something to write home about.
It's her name on the poster, but James McAvoy's character eats up more of the plot. Which I'm sure appealed to certain folks who liked seeing the woman lead spend most of her time getting beaten up and tortured rather than do anything.
She wouldn't have done either if not for her BF and Waltz paving the way for her. And "Born Sexy Yesterday" still needs to be brought up, even if I was the only one here to see it.
In the sequel, after Krasinski did everything to get her there. That colors the entire series.
That Creed wasn't called SJW because the title character couldn't do anything on his own and needed an old white guy to accomplish anything.
And her other appearances are simple fanservice, as her actual role and impact on the series was 1 adventure she was never remembered for.
*Yawn* Your crusade to prove everyone wrong about the female characters and films they belong to is getting tiresome and the more you try to prove your points the cracks in logic keep showing and you have to result in trying to save face and apply further fallacy to show you have something to stand on. Your attempt to use shock value when you describe the audience for films such as Atomic Blonde shows how desperate you are to be seen as in-the-right, but it is totally ineffective. And your argument for Creed (whichever that is) is spiraling out of control, and going nowhere. Michael B. Jordan wasn't a star at the time the original Creed was released and Stallone a bigger name - that is a fact. Creed is a spin-off of the Rocky series - that is also a fact. Michael B. Jordan, thanks to movies like the Creed series, is a star currently and is not only the lead of part three but also its director - another fact. And as a reminder Stallone is not in the third film at all.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 18, 2023 4:07:37 GMT
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. And the way it's used in storytelling is the "overall plan" method, despite what the Grifters say. They deliberately misrepresent how the term "Agenda" relates to storytelling because they want to appeal to the conspiracy crowd.
I never had a Professor say that a real story could do without an Agenda/Plan.
He can say he didn't set out to, but he still did regardless. Go read "Ravage 2099" and tell me it's not preaching.
The Agenda/Plan in that story is plain to see, and that's quite political. There's more to left/right/center than what FOX says.
Yes, indeed. Quite misogynistic and anti-woman.
Once again, because you appear to have the difficult task of staying on topic, in the context of this conversation "agenda" is referring to the underlying intentions or motives of a particular group or person. There is more than one definition for "agenda", they are not all equal. In what I am referring to, an agenda is not required for telling a story, neither is metaphor, conflict however is expected in all forms and all genres. It has nothing to do with what a grifter has to say online, it's been established in the teaching of creative writing for years. Unfortunately, Stan Lee is no longer with us so neither of us can have the opportunity to ask him what his intentions where when such a story was being published, so the only frame of reference that we have is that interview where he says to interviewer he doesn't like to preach and wanted Marvel to be seen as generally providers of escapist entertainment. Only for people who just discovered the word 'activism' and want to be seen as social justice warriors on social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook, or just are easily offended by things that are not reflective of the world of the now. Grease is a light, feel-good musical made in the 1970's set in the 1950's, not to be taken that seriously by the viewer. Before her passing, the late Olivia Newton-John made a comment about how ridiculous such claims are, linkAs for The Godfather, the film is set, largely, in the 1950's which is a very different time than today. It does present patriarchal sexist attitudes (Done for the purpose to reflect life of the 1950's as a decade) but it's not anti-women and is promoting the idea to the viewer to treat the opposite sex like trash. Not only that, but most of the cast of characters in The Godfather are not good people - they're criminals. But the movie, and its two sequels, are not telling the viewer to join the mafia and become a gangster, either.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 18, 2023 4:09:49 GMT
*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. He made his bed, now he can lie in it. Mr. Will Jordan seems to be doing pretty okay, you on the other hand have a very unhealthy obsession with him and his associates and it has left you making fallacy after another that some people think you're younger than you actually are based on your decline in debate skill.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 18, 2023 4:10:22 GMT
"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. If someone goes after my family, I don't let it slide. Two wrongs don't make a right, what he did was wrong, and what you did was wrong as well - and you got banned for it.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 18, 2023 4:11:17 GMT
Using fallacy to defend fallacy does not make a right. I simply realized that they weren't interested in being conciliatory and decided to play by their rules. Fair is fair. Fallacy (appeal to pity) + fallacy (hasty generalization) = weak argument (Always).
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 18, 2023 5:14:03 GMT
She experienced very minor growth, yes. Not something to write home about.
It's her name on the poster, but James McAvoy's character eats up more of the plot. Which I'm sure appealed to certain folks who liked seeing the woman lead spend most of her time getting beaten up and tortured rather than do anything.
She wouldn't have done either if not for her BF and Waltz paving the way for her. And "Born Sexy Yesterday" still needs to be brought up, even if I was the only one here to see it.
In the sequel, after Krasinski did everything to get her there. That colors the entire series.
That Creed wasn't called SJW because the title character couldn't do anything on his own and needed an old white guy to accomplish anything.
And her other appearances are simple fanservice, as her actual role and impact on the series was 1 adventure she was never remembered for.
*Yawn* Your crusade to prove everyone wrong about the female characters and films they belong to is getting tiresome and the more you try to prove your points the cracks in logic keep showing and you have to result in trying to save face and apply further fallacy to show you have something to stand on. Your attempt to use shock value when you describe the audience for films such as Atomic Blonde shows how desperate you are to be seen as in-the-right, but it is totally ineffective. And your argument for Creed (whichever that is) is spiraling out of control, and going nowhere. Michael B. Jordan wasn't a star at the time the original Creed was released and Stallone a bigger name - that is a fact. Creed is a spin-off of the Rocky series - that is also a fact. Michael B. Jordan, thanks to movies like the Creed series, is a star currently and is not only the lead of part three but also its director - another fact. And as a reminder Stallone is not in the third film at all. Atomic Blonde wasn't a successful movie, for good reason.
IE, they knew it would get labeled Woke if it weren't for Stallone and anyone watching the 3rd and not thinking it's Woke are lying to themselves.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 18, 2023 5:18:17 GMT
And the way it's used in storytelling is the "overall plan" method, despite what the Grifters say. They deliberately misrepresent how the term "Agenda" relates to storytelling because they want to appeal to the conspiracy crowd.
I never had a Professor say that a real story could do without an Agenda/Plan.
He can say he didn't set out to, but he still did regardless. Go read "Ravage 2099" and tell me it's not preaching.
The Agenda/Plan in that story is plain to see, and that's quite political. There's more to left/right/center than what FOX says.
Yes, indeed. Quite misogynistic and anti-woman.
Once again, because you appear to have the difficult task of staying on topic, in the context of this conversation "agenda" is referring to the underlying intentions or motives of a particular group or person. There is more than one definition for "agenda", they are not all equal. In what I am referring to, an agenda is not required for telling a story, neither is metaphor, conflict however is expected in all forms and all genres. It has nothing to do with what a grifter has to say online, it's been established in the teaching of creative writing for years. Unfortunately, Stan Lee is no longer with us so neither of us can have the opportunity to ask him what his intentions where when such a story was being published, so the only frame of reference that we have is that interview where he says to interviewer he doesn't like to preach and wanted Marvel to be seen as generally providers of escapist entertainment. Only for people who just discovered the word 'activism' and want to be seen as social justice warriors on social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook, or just are easily offended by things that are not reflective of the world of the now. Grease is a light, feel-good musical made in the 1970's set in the 1950's, not to be taken that seriously by the viewer. Before her passing, the late Olivia Newton-John made a comment about how ridiculous such claims are, linkAs for The Godfather, the film is set, largely, in the 1950's which is a very different time than today. It does present patriarchal sexist attitudes (Done for the purpose to reflect life of the 1950's as a decade) but it's not anti-women and is promoting the idea to the viewer to treat the opposite sex like trash. Not only that, but most of the cast of characters in The Godfather are not good people - they're criminals. But the movie, and its two sequels, are not telling the viewer to join the mafia and become a gangster, either. No, that's just a very narrow interpretation of the word to further the mission of those who are against any and all forms of social and political commentary in any forms of stories at all. Any writer worth their wait will have a plan for their story, and therefore an Agenda.
And actions speak louder than words. What we saw in the stories says otherwise than his statement.
It doesn't change that the movie showed it being "wrong" for Danny Zuko to change himself but not for Sandy to do the same.
The Godfather movies as a whole really failed at their messages, they were supposed to be about the horrors of Organized Crime and the destructive effects it has on people. Instead it made it look glamorous and real Gangsters used it as a model. So the sexism isn't portrayed negatively either.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 18, 2023 5:18:53 GMT
He made his bed, now he can lie in it. Mr. Will Jordan seems to be doing pretty okay, you on the other hand have a very unhealthy obsession with him and his associates and it has left you making fallacy after another that some people think you're younger than you actually are based on your decline in debate skill. He'll self-destruct, like Alex Jones did. It's the fate of all Grifters. A well deserved fate.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 18, 2023 5:19:30 GMT
If someone goes after my family, I don't let it slide. Two wrongs don't make a right, what he did was wrong, and what you did was wrong as well - and you got banned for it. And he didn't. Which means it's apparently fine he threatened my family. There's justice for you.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 18, 2023 5:20:09 GMT
I simply realized that they weren't interested in being conciliatory and decided to play by their rules. Fair is fair. Fallacy (appeal to pity) + fallacy (hasty generalization) = weak argument (Always). More like "If the crowd shows up ugly, don't play nice. It's not worth it."
OT fans were against the Sequels from the instant they were announced, that's a fact.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 18, 2023 5:44:56 GMT
*Yawn* Your crusade to prove everyone wrong about the female characters and films they belong to is getting tiresome and the more you try to prove your points the cracks in logic keep showing and you have to result in trying to save face and apply further fallacy to show you have something to stand on. Your attempt to use shock value when you describe the audience for films such as Atomic Blonde shows how desperate you are to be seen as in-the-right, but it is totally ineffective. And your argument for Creed (whichever that is) is spiraling out of control, and going nowhere. Michael B. Jordan wasn't a star at the time the original Creed was released and Stallone a bigger name - that is a fact. Creed is a spin-off of the Rocky series - that is also a fact. Michael B. Jordan, thanks to movies like the Creed series, is a star currently and is not only the lead of part three but also its director - another fact. And as a reminder Stallone is not in the third film at all. Atomic Blonde wasn't a successful movie, for good reason.
IE, they knew it would get labeled Woke if it weren't for Stallone and anyone watching the 3rd and not thinking it's Woke are lying to themselves.
So, we are talking about box office now? I thought it was merit. Do you read your comments before you hit "Create Post"? This reads like a middle schooler trying to silence someone in a passing conversation.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 18, 2023 5:54:21 GMT
Once again, because you appear to have the difficult task of staying on topic, in the context of this conversation "agenda" is referring to the underlying intentions or motives of a particular group or person. There is more than one definition for "agenda", they are not all equal. In what I am referring to, an agenda is not required for telling a story, neither is metaphor, conflict however is expected in all forms and all genres. It has nothing to do with what a grifter has to say online, it's been established in the teaching of creative writing for years. Unfortunately, Stan Lee is no longer with us so neither of us can have the opportunity to ask him what his intentions where when such a story was being published, so the only frame of reference that we have is that interview where he says to interviewer he doesn't like to preach and wanted Marvel to be seen as generally providers of escapist entertainment. Only for people who just discovered the word 'activism' and want to be seen as social justice warriors on social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook, or just are easily offended by things that are not reflective of the world of the now. Grease is a light, feel-good musical made in the 1970's set in the 1950's, not to be taken that seriously by the viewer. Before her passing, the late Olivia Newton-John made a comment about how ridiculous such claims are, linkAs for The Godfather, the film is set, largely, in the 1950's which is a very different time than today. It does present patriarchal sexist attitudes (Done for the purpose to reflect life of the 1950's as a decade) but it's not anti-women and is promoting the idea to the viewer to treat the opposite sex like trash. Not only that, but most of the cast of characters in The Godfather are not good people - they're criminals. But the movie, and its two sequels, are not telling the viewer to join the mafia and become a gangster, either. No, that's just a very narrow interpretation of the word to further the mission of those who are against any and all forms of social and political commentary in any forms of stories at all. Any writer worth their wait will have a plan for their story, and therefore an Agenda.
And actions speak louder than words. What we saw in the stories says otherwise than his statement.
It doesn't change that the movie showed it being "wrong" for Danny Zuko to change himself but not for Sandy to do the same.
The Godfather movies as a whole really failed at their messages, they were supposed to be about the horrors of Organized Crime and the destructive effects it has on people. Instead it made it look glamorous and real Gangsters used it as a model. So the sexism isn't portrayed negatively either.
My, you certainly want to be crowned as The King of Fallacies, don't you? It isn't a narrow interpretation of the word; it is literally a definition for it, it has multiple meanings depending on context. The context for "agenda" in this conversation is clear as day, and in the context of which I am speaking of, I am correct - an agenda is not necessary for a story. You are free to interpret the work that way, but the creator says otherwise and that is as close as you can get to their official word. Some people have made the argument the 2013 film Gravity is science fiction, but it doesn't really qualify as such and even its own director Alfonso Cuarón doesn't see it as science fiction, either. But Danny Zuko does change himself for Sandy, he began to wear a letterman jacket and more preppy attire. If you truly believe that the filmmakers went out of their way to glamorize the mafia in The Godfather and basically encourage the viewer to want to aspire to have that sort of lifestyle, I think it says more about you as the viewer than the work itself. It sounds like you had an agenda when you watched The Godfather trilogy, in all honesty - It sounds like you also had an agenda when seeing Top Gun: Maverick, as well.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 18, 2023 6:00:35 GMT
Mr. Will Jordan seems to be doing pretty okay, you on the other hand have a very unhealthy obsession with him and his associates and it has left you making fallacy after another that some people think you're younger than you actually are based on your decline in debate skill. He'll self-destruct, like Alex Jones did. It's the fate of all Grifters. A well deserved fate. If anyone's acting like a grifter who is self-destructing, it's you friend. You keep pushing up and down with the same rhetoric like a wild person, and no one is buying it and calling you out. Your arguments keep breaking apart to the point where they read silly and sound like a much younger person.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 18, 2023 6:02:03 GMT
Two wrongs don't make a right, what he did was wrong, and what you did was wrong as well - and you got banned for it. And he didn't. Which means it's apparently fine he threatened my family. There's justice for you. If he said such things to you on here then he should have been banned as well, but he eventually was for a different reason and hasn't reappeared since.
|
|