Jump to content

Smitty

Members
  • Posts

    75,561
  • Joined

Everything posted by Smitty

  1. More like the Nintendo Shit, am I right!?
  2. Just had it pointed out to me that Finn knew that TFO had a hyperspace tracker (he was mopping there) and didn't tell anyone about it before the scene where it is mentioned in this. The same as he didn't tell anyone that TFO had a functional Super Deathstar (he also mopped there) that they were planning to attack the Republic with in TFA. Oh, and I didn't really see it mentioned but the other thing not followed up from TFA is the Knights of Ren. Or how or why Maz had Luke's lightsabre.
  3. There's really no need. This the debate that people want.
  4. They say that her character has lost her memory. So she's probably forgotten where/how to buy a new top.
  5. Good lord! Where is she buying her tops?
  6. Not too keen on the reduction in breast size. If you're going to do that then at least make her eyes twice as big. Compensate.
  7. How about a compromise? That chest, as they say in Hollywood, stays in the picture. But we could get rid of that top and go for something a bit more coffee-at-Starbucks. Maybe a nice silk blouse. Hmm?
  8. Lol that top. It's the top!
  9. I do miss Anniversary era Lara Croft. That was an iconic look. Even with the toned down body you can still tell instantly from the outline alone that's it yer girl Lara. She looks fiercely cool to me, like someone I'd love to be. Handle anything, anyone and go anywhere - all whilst looking amazing. She had an attitude to match: "I'm afraid I only play for sport". That's another aspect; such designs aren't primarily sexual to everyone. There are gay men and straight women aike the old Lara's look. Now she just looks like anyone. Boring. Personality's gone too.
  10. It turns out a lot of people didn't enjoy answering the call. Boom! Nailed it.
  11. It's precisely because I value diversity and have empathy for other perspectives. I don't like homophobia much. But I do like Eminem's early albums, homophobia and all. I can see the funny side of it. I can see the bad side of it too, obviously. And you better believe I'd stand up for it. If the gay male version of this came along I'd support that too. In the new Ghostbusters they relentlessly sexualise the dumb secretary played by Thor. I find it somewhat hypocritical but I also find it fine and I'd support it against any MRA bores who'd go after it.
  12. Y'know I'm beginning to think these big titties aren't worth the trouble! I do find myself coming back to the thought about how everyone has something that other people find objectionable and would rather didn't exist. Think about what you like. Is it violent? Sexy? Pornographic? Blasphemous? Non-heteroconformative? Liberal? Socialist? Communist? Does it have graphic language? Is it ostentatious? Does it feature drug taking? Is it militaristic? Obviously I could go on. Plenty of people would have an objection those things. I would hate to be shamed for enjoying watching Gerard Butler stab people in the head. Or whatever. I don't see my tastes as inherently superior though so i'm also not intereted in doing much shaming the other way.
  13. I considered it a sequal to Spiderman Homecoming, not Infinity War. So I came to see the news about that. All you had to do to not include a spoiler is consider that not everyone has seen Infinity War and that posting a rambling video from an actor in the film don't includes a major spoiler wasn't a necessary part of posting the title of the film. Spiderman's appearance in Civil War is in its trailer. It wasn't a surprise to anyone. You could have just put a spoiler in the title and the OP, but instead you choose to add make a sarcastic passive-aggressive comment too. If you don't want something, don't start something.
  14. I have several times made clear it is entirely valid to criticise this and anything else. You've read these posts yourself. I have absolutely not said anywhere that you're not allowed to criticise it. If you think otherwise, please quote the post in question. What I have done here and elsewhere is express my thoughts and concerns about the nature and volume of complaints I've seen against this sort of thing. And I'm not blind to sexism. I totally understand why some people find this objectionable. I myself am not a fan. But that's not the point. I have also been on the receiving end of sexism myself. As a gay man I understand what being descriminated against because of who you are, too. Of course it's an issue worth talking about. There are also other issues worth talking about like about unfairly judging others by the nature of the media they consume. Or the importance of freedom of expression. That's all I'm doing. And look, you and me both know it's not really worth a gigantic sizzling ruckus about. The game is what it is. Anyone who's thinking of buying it is unlikely to be convinced not to buy it via this type of criticism and I am unlikely to convince anyone with your view that they could possibly cool their jets on trying to make this socially unacceptable. I genuinely respect the hard work and intellectual rigor that's been applied by people like you to critiquing this kind of thing. That's not sarcasm. I just have disagreements about the application of those critiques and, ultimately, concerns.
  15. No, i'm really really not. I'm setting out the thinking behind my position, and what I am opposed to. I'm speaking up for unpopular creative expressions; there are plenty of people doing the opposite. You're literally one of the most popular people on the forum. I can, in no way shape or form, censor you. And I never have, or would attempt to. See, I LOVE other people being able to say what they like. I really do. There are some, though, who would happily see other people banned from this forum for life, criminalised in the real world or otherwise punished for their opinions. I'm proud to say that i'm not one of them.
  16. If the opposite is true - that they don't want to narrow the acceptable range - then logically this is acceptable because its part of the range that already exists. Which they only wish to widen, as you say. So we're back at my starting position. It's one of many valid ways to design a character. You don't like it, I don't mind.
  17. No, try again. You're meant to personally insult him. Say he doesn't like fun or whatever. You can surely do better than that.
  18. Oh, way to be a prat about it. I saw Homecoming: there weren't any Dr Strange spoilers in it.
  19. Contrarily i, as a mixed race gay man with mental health problems, have always found it an interesting metaphor. Mystique rebutting the idea that we could all hide away to avoid conflict with the line "we shouldn't have to", is a powerful line to me.
  20. Variety includes things we've seen before. Variety doesn't mean unique novelty. So, no: logically variety does include this. When I say I want variety in my diet it doesn't mean that I am not going to ever eat the same meal twice. Of course it's legit to comment on. It's also legit to be unbothered by it, to like it, to buy it. It's legit for it to exist. Personally I don't want to see a creative landscape that only includes things I personally want. Because that would naturally infringe on the rights of others to self expression. Buy the game, don't buy the game. Criticise it, or don't. We all have that freedom. Pretending that anyone who might like this design, or feel its fine for some games to be like this but wouldn't want ALL games to be like it, to intensely moralise their personal taste is not something i'm interested in. We probably all have something that we love that somebody somewhere finds objectionable. Some people think Iron Man is afascistic celebration of military imperilism. Whatever. I am not interested in enforcing cultural homogeneity. And i'm responding here because it seems polite to reply. If this goes down the path of us working through our personal grudges then i'm out. Not interested. Just so you know what my intention is.
  21. The Ken Burns Vietnam War Documentary Glosses Over Devastating Civilian Toll Ken Burns Says the Vietnam War Was “Begun in Good Faith.” So Was Every Other Lousy War. Ken Burns’s Vietnam: Great TV. Horrible History Historians MIA Professors debate the role -- or absence -- of the historian in Ken Burns and Lynn Novick's new Vietnam documentary, concurring that a lack of critical perspective makes the film more milquetoast than masterpiece. Ken Burns’s Vietnam Documentary Promotes Misleading History Ken Burns’ ‘The Vietnam War’ offers same narrative, with little perspective Making history safe again: What Ken Burns gets wrong about Vietnam
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.