Off-Topic: The Top Ten Things That Bother Me About Films and Television

[Zobovor]

I would like to propose that we allow regular off-topic conversations on the newsgroup. Honestly, off-topic posts were the order of the day during the newsgroup's heyday (Pokémon, Gundam Wing, etc.) and it was a major annoyance. Nowadays, we get so little traffic that I really don't see it being that disruptive. (If the two or three of you still left disagree, let me know.)

So, I've been thinking about some of the things that bother me the most about the stuff I watch. A lot of them are deals where it never used to bug me, but once I noticed it, I began to see it everywhere. Anybody else bothered by stuff like this? In no particular order:

1) When characters are singing along to what is supposedly a favorite song, and it's clear the actor only heard it once or twice before filming began. When I sing a favorite song, I hit all the notes at precisely the right pitch and length because I know the song backwards and forwards. It's totally disingenuous when an actor is clearly not familiar with what he's singing along to. (This also applies to characters who are supposedly reciting a favorite line from a movie they're watching.)

2) In a related vein, when characters are singing along to songs (or watching movies) but it's not in synch with the soundtrack that we, as the audience, are hearing. This is likely because the song (or movie) wasn't actually playing at all when the actors were being filmed and it was added to the film's soundtrack in post-production. There's no way an actor can be expected to match the song perfectly if he's not actually hearing it, though.

3) Often there will be scenes between two characters speaking to each other, and occasionally the camera will cut away from the character's face to an alternate camera shot over that character's shoulder. We can still see his jaw moving, but it's not in synch with his words. This is because the film editor used different footage for the over-the-shoulder shots but kept the same soundtrack. I suspect that if you start to watch for this, you will probably see it in the very next movie you watch, because it's just that common. I've noticed it dozens upon dozens of times now.

4) When characters are speaking on the phone, and there is only the briefest of pauses while the person on the other end is supposedly relaying an incredible amount of information in the space of half a second. I understand the need to keep the narrative flow going, but it's so unrealistic that it pulls me out of the story.

5) When there is a baby on screen and the sound editors dub baby noises into the soundtrack even though the baby is clearly not vocalizing.

6) There is no number six.

7) When songs are edited, or different parts of them are pieced together, just to fit the length of a scene. For example, when we only hear the instrumental parts, not the parts that are sung by the artist, so the vocals don't interrupt the character dialogue. If these are real-life songs then the characters who are listening to it should sit up and take notice, but of course they never do. (This happens a lot in commercials, which annoys me too, but commercials don't pretend to take place in some fictional universe.)

8) When characters turn on or turn off a light and their action isn't even vaguely in synch with the stage hands switching on or off the stage lighting.

9) When lightning and thunder occur at the exact same time.

10) When somebody manages to enlarge or enhance a blurry photograph with perfect pixel definition to reveal obscure, previously-unseen details (like a license plate, somebody's face, etc.) Every time I see this I want to throw something at my TV.

Anybody else have any major pet peeves that I didn't list?


Zob

[Travoltron]

1) Characters knocking other characters, usually guards, unconscious.
Either tie them up or kill them. These Hollywood KO's that last just
conveniently long enough to complete the mission, and then they get up
without any side effects don't exist.

2) Characters, usually women or effeminate men, fainting when surprised.
THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN! Like, watch YouTube videos. Watch 9/11 footage.
Do you see bystanders fainting?

3) Amnesia plots. So overused. The stories ALWAYS end with the
character getting their memory back, usually by getting hit on the head
a second time. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

[banzait...@gmail.com]

Wow, you sure went easy on Hollywood. Those are more nits than systemic problems. Here are some of my gripes:

(NOTE: I know it sounds like I am griping about the bay movies, but honestly I am not. They just happen to be like most of the crap Hollywood cranks out these days)


1.) More explosions than dialogue
2.) Overuse of CGI (Remember when movies had special effects?)
3.) Overuse of CGI
4.) 3-D
5.) Complete lack of original ideas: What number are the up to with fast and furious?
6.) Ridiculously hot women in normal settings. Unless the scene is taking place at a strip club, it's totally fake.
7.) Ridiculously rich people. Most of the movies take place in palacial homes that 1% of us lives in.
8.) Awards. Why do actors have so many awards shows. The are ACTORS! It's not hard work, nor is their work beneficial to society.
9.) Total lack of realism. This has so many aspects to it. However, I think much of this stems from the overuse of CGI. NOw, we can have a horrible real car crash happen, but the actor walks out alive.
10.) Remakes (see #5). Just because Hollywood made a great movie in the 60s, doesn't mean you have to re-do it to make money and barf all over what was once a great film.

-Banzaitron

[Neo Thunder]

How about that $#%! electronic "tone" they use that started in the TF
film commercials and now gets used in every damn thing... try something
else already Hollywood!

t.k.

[nooneinpar...@gmail.com]

Number 10 always bugs me too. When you look at real security video footage you wonder how they could possibly be used as any type of evidence at all. Make out the face? You're lucky if you can tell what gender they are...

Brian

[nooneinpar...@gmail.com]

And just for the record I never minded the off topic stuff even years ago. I just mark as read and move on if I'm not interested. And if I am then I just enjoy some off-topic goodness.

Brian

[Zobovor]

On Saturday, April 19, 2014 7:40:58 AM UTC-6, banzait...@gmail.com wrote:

> 2.) Overuse of CGI (Remember when movies had special effects?)

In some ways I bemoan the use of CGI because it totally removes the mystique of special effects. It used to be that I'd watch a movie and wonder to myself, "Wow, that was cool, I wonder how they achieved that? Was that a miniature? Was the guy hanging from piano wires?" Now, of course, practical effects are extremely rare and the answer is almost uniformly, "oh, they CGI'd it."

There is also the fact that it never quite looks right to my eye. If there's a guy in a rubber mask, at least he's physically there in the scene and the actors can touch him. Even the best CGI still seems to have some trouble getting the lighting and movement correct because it's extremely rare that it doesn't just jump out at me as looking fake.

> 6.) Ridiculously hot women in normal settings. Unless the scene is taking
> place at a strip club, it's totally fake.

There *are* ridiculously hot women out there. There really are beautiful women who have normal jobs and aren't all strippers and supermodels and whatnot. With that said, I would love to see the de-glorification of Hollywood and have a lot more "regular" looking people cast in film roles. We've become so desensitized to true beauty because we see these gorgeous women in film and television every single day.

> 8.) Awards. Why do actors have so many awards shows. The are ACTORS! It's
> not hard work, nor is their work beneficial to society.

We reward entertainers by giving them our money because that is who we value the most in society. Really, we should be having awards shows for teachers and scientists and war veterans and people who have worked really hard to change this world for the better.

> 9.) Total lack of realism. This has so many aspects to it. However, I
> think much of this stems from the overuse of CGI. NOw, we can have a
> horrible real car crash happen, but the actor walks out alive.

Or a terribly fake-looking crash, in the case of Star Wars: Episode II.

> 10.) Remakes (see #5). Just because Hollywood made a great movie in the
> 60s, doesn't mean you have to re-do it to make money and barf all over what
> was once a great film.

This was actually the subject of a discussion panel at ComicCon. I really do genuinely think the studios are culling past films, looking for stuff they can remake with CGI. I'm okay with continuing a story, even if they have to bring in new actors to play the older characters, but there are so many movies where there was absolutely nothing *wrong* with the original so there's no sense in remaking it. RoboCop? Really?


Zob

[Zobovor]

Are you talking about how there's a loud crash or explosion or something and then for a moment there's nothing but a high-pitched ringing, as though we as the collective audience are all suffering from tinnitus? That was clever the first time I saw it used, but now it's all over the place and it's grown trite and stale.


Zob

[Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats]

On Saturday, April 19, 2014 6:40:58 AM UTC-7, banzait...@gmail.com wrote:
> 1.) More explosions than dialogue

Some movies have better explosions than dialog. ROTF, "The Phantom Menace" and "Breakfast at Tiffany's" all would have been better having some of the more racially stereotypical scenes replaced with car chases and explosions.

> 2.) Overuse of CGI (Remember when movies had special effects?)

One of the thing that bothers me about the Star Wars special editions is that we no longer have the award winning special effects.

> 6.) Ridiculously hot women in normal settings. Unless the scene is taking place at a strip club, it's totally fake.

I don't mind that they are all attractive, but too many actors are all attractive in the same way. If nothing else, it makes it hard to follow the movie when everyone looks alike.

> 7.) Ridiculously rich people. Most of the movies take place in palacial homes that 1% of us lives in.

Do you remember Roseanne? Sit-com from twenty years ago? One of the things that I loved about that show was they were basically lower middle class, and there was no fairy tale happiness sprayed on, and there was no glorification of it -- no nobility of poverty, or plain simple folks know better and so everything turns out in the end. They struggled to not be poor, and it didn't make them better people, it was just hard.

I'm not sure it is something that would work well in a 2 hour movie, though. You end up with art house films with a limited audience, rather than one of the top rated shows at the time.

> 8.) Awards. Why do actors have so many awards shows. The are ACTORS! It's not hard work, nor is their work beneficial to society.

Bullshit. It's hard work. And it is beneficial to society. A common set of stories is part of what binds a society together. 3,000 years ago, there was Homer, 400 years ago there was Shakespeare, and now we have Star Wars. All brilliant in their own way, and all serving to help give people a common frame of reference.

> 10.) Remakes (see #5). Just because Hollywood made a great movie in the 60s, doesn't mean you have to re-do it to make money and barf all over what was once a great film.

There have been some truly inspired remakes recently. The recent True Grit is a way different movie from the original, with a radically different interpretation of the story.

1. Happy Endings -- we don't get many tragedies these days

2. Stories where we learn that with perseverance and a good heart, the homely man can win the heart of the beautiful woman. -- it sends the message that women are prizes, and that they are worth no more than their appearance.

3. Extended editions on DVD/BluRay.

4. Man Of Steel -- a movie so bad, it gets a spot on the list, all for itself.

5. Gritty.

6. CGI mixed with live action.

4 more at a later date.

[Neo Thunder]

Zobovor wrote:
> Are you talking about how there's a loud crash or explosion or something and then for a moment there's nothing but a high-pitched ringing, as though we as the collective audience are all suffering from tinnitus? That was clever the first time I saw it used, but now it's all over the place and it's grown trite and stale.

Yeah. It's really annoying... although I wouldn't mind seeing it used in
a comedy or rom-com commercial. :)

t.k.

[banzait...@gmail.com]

I know EXACTLY what he is referring to. Every time I hear it, I look to see if it is a bay film. They play it in just about every action trailer now. It has a deep bass effect to it, if you have a decent sound system hooked up to your tv.
Typical Hollywood. they did create a pretty bas azz sound effect, but then they had to use it on every damn action film they crank out.

-Banzaitron

[Judoon]

"Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats" <Gustav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, April 19, 2014 6:40:58 AM UTC-7, banzait...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> 4. Man Of Steel -- a movie so bad, it gets a spot on the list, all for itself.
>

I really thought there was no way to make a crapper Superman movie than
Superman Returns with creepy stalker Superman, and I was so way off. I
don't care what anyone thinks, but Man of Steel made Dare Devil, Green
Lantern and Green Hornet look like some of the best superhero movies ever
created. Now they have to bring Batman and Wonder Woman into this complete
crapfest by miscasting every character in the film. How does DC create such
good Animated superhero movies, and such crap live action?


--
Damn lying squirrels!

[Judoon]

<banzait...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wow, you sure went easy on Hollywood. Those are more nits than systemic
> problems. Here are some of my gripes:
>
> (NOTE: I know it sounds like I am griping about the bay movies, but
> honestly I am not. They just happen to be like most of the crap
> Hollywood cranks out these days)
>
>

> 2.) Overuse of CGI (Remember when movies had special effects?)
> 3.) Overuse of CGI
>

Anyone who uses the term CGI (Computer Graphics/Graphical Interface) when
referring to CG (Computer Graphics). Does that count?

[Zobovor]

On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 5:21:21 PM UTC-6, Judoon wrote:

> Anyone who uses the term CGI (Computer Graphics/Graphical Interface) when
> referring to CG (Computer Graphics). Does that count?

They were calling it Computer Generated Imagery back before the abbreviation "CGI" had entered the pop culture lexicon. The first time I recall seeing it was in the end credits for Disney's Aladdin back in 1992.


Zob

[Irrellius Spamticon of the Potato People.]

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 10:27:08 PM UTC-5, Zobovor wrote:
>
> Anybody else have any major pet peeves that I didn't list?
>
>
>
>
>
> Zob

1. Movie previews that have 1 second of the movie, then jump to....another second of the movie from a completely different part...then jump to a third second, in no way relating to the first two seconds, repeat ad-nausea, but make damned sure the audience has no freakin clue what the movie is about in anyway. You might hear the name of the movie repeated over and over again.....Michael Clayton! Michael Clayton! You're not making me wonder, you aren't giving me enough to go on so I'd rather do other stuff!

2. Murders solved through tire tracks, or a scrap of fabric they have no reason to believe is even related to the case. But they trace that 1 little piece to a type of tire or fabric, that was only used on this 1 car or type of clothing, that was only sold at one place, and the store happens to have a list of everyone who ever bought that.

3. CSI, NCIS, have 100% case solve rate. At least Law & order the bad guy sometimes gets away.

4. Man of Steel was pretty terrible,

5. Adults acting like spoiled ten year olds. So Adam Sandler and Will Ferrell movies.

6. Characters beaten, bloody, broken bones, just stand up at the end of the movie and walk away. Then we cut to the next scene and they are either completely blood free, or washing it all off.

7. reality shows where the host shows up at people's house and it shows shots from inside the house of the person opening their door and letting the camera crew in.

8. Intentionally bad camera work to "simulate" a camcorder or phone camera where it's not needed or even logical.

9. "your family or millions of lives" dilemma. The hero can save his kids or the rest of the world.

10. When "computer hacking" looks silly. When there's 350 DOS windows opening and closing faster than the can be read and the character is just mashing keys randomly. Or when the graphic looks like someone assembling a 3D puzzle.

11. Really shitty 3D effects that only go for 10-20 minutes of the movie, and ruin it, but manage to want an extra $5 from you to see it in 3D.

12. Bumbling idiot character saves the day by accident. Jar-jar stumbling around a battlefield, etc.

13. Tiny molotov cocktail blows up with a giant explosion that sets off a huge chain reaction.

14. Midway through a movie or series people start referring to a character by a different name for no explained reason. Jack Ryan Shadow Recruit calls him John a few times, then back to Jack, and I don't know why. Game of Thrones also does this too regularly.

15. Kids movies with perverted sexual jokes that the writers put in there to get adults to watch giving the excuse that "kids won't get that the joke is even there." When I was a kid my parents didn't want me watching Shrek movies or Ernest movies because of this.

16. The ugly duckling was really beautiful all along, once she gets a makeover then the guy of her dreams will love her back. Most of the time I think the before the makeover looked better than the after.

17. Main character action star is a chemist, physicist, philosopher, poet, animal rights activist, who speaks 15 languages, and who just happens to martial-arts the crap of terrorists and defuse bombs when he needs to.

18. When night action scenes are too dark to actually see anything. Underworld movies and the show Arrow are very bad at this. I see 2 guys in hoods, are they hugging? there was something shiny. Which one was the hero? They are all dressed alike.

[Irrellius Spamticon of the Potato People.]

19. bad science poorly explained. This secret weapon that creates a chain reaction, nuclear flash and suddenly skeletons! DNA experiment that we can make a monster, or regrow limbs!

[Gustavo Wombat]

"Irrellius Spamticon of the Potato People." <Ob1k...@att.net> wrote:
>
> 14. Midway through a movie or series people start referring to a
> character by a different name for no explained reason. Jack Ryan Shadow
> Recruit calls him John a few times, then back to Jack, and I don't know
> why. Game of Thrones also does this too regularly.

"Jack" is a nickname for "Jonathon". Not in as common use as "John", but
still used. See, for instance, JFK.

[Irrellius Spamticon of the Potato People.]

On Thursday, June 19, 2014 9:30:09 AM UTC-5, Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats wrote:

> "Irrellius Spamticon of the Potato People." wrote:
>
> >
>
> > 14. Midway through a movie or series people start referring to a
>
> > character by a different name for no explained reason. Jack Ryan Shadow
>
> > Recruit calls him John a few times, then back to Jack, and I don't know
>
> > why. Game of Thrones also does this too regularly.
>
>
>
> "Jack" is a nickname for "Jonathon". Not in as common use as "John", but
>
> still used. See, for instance, JFK.

I looked that up and it's right, but still one would refer to oneself with consistency I would think, instead of just randomly choosing a nickname from a pool.

[Judoon]

"Irrellius Spamticon of the Potato People." <Ob1k...@att.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 10:27:08 PM UTC-5, Zobovor wrote:
>>
>> Anybody else have any major pet peeves that I didn't list?
>>
>>
>

> 4. Man of Steel was pretty terrible,
>

But the sequel looks to be great with the whole cast miscast. Just think of
the possibilities... If we could just get Christopher Walken squeezed in as
Robin it could very well be the worst movie ever conceived. Man of Steel
makes all of the Transformers films look good in comparison.

> 10. When "computer hacking" looks silly. When there's 350 DOS windows
> opening and closing faster than the can be read and the character is just
> mashing keys randomly. Or when the graphic looks like someone assembling a 3D puzzle.
>

Seems like all computers in major corporations are PC's from 1984.

I'm quite surprised there has been no one bitching about Optimus killing a
human.


--
Damn lying squirrels!

[Judoon]

Guess I'll have to just live with and hate it as much as there is no
explanation for DVD.


--
Damn lying squirrels!

[Ultra Magnotron]

On 7/16/2014 4:01 PM, Judoon wrote:
> Guess I'll have to just live with and hate it as much as there is no
> explanation for DVD.

??? I don't understand...

DVD = Digital Versatile Disc

Versatile, as it is more than just a video (Java, HTML, Images, etc.)
disc.

Do you mean people use DVD incorrectly?

---
Help me edit my TF:RiD wiki
http://robotsindisguise.wikia.com/wiki/Transformers:_Robots_in_Disguise_Wiki

[Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats]

There are counter examples to all of these, except #4.

1. Using a familiar pop song in the background to suggest mood and emotion rather than having actors actually act.


2. Epic length (also 3D, but that's just a quirk of mine). I currently consider movies based on an expected misery index of:
(100 - rotten-tomatoes-critics-score) * minutes-of-film * dimensions.
So, Age of Extinction in 3D has an expected misery index of 39,093, while Snowpiercer in 2D has an expected misery index of 1,512. So, expect 25 times the misery watching AoE in 3D compared to Snowpiercer in 2D. (Snowpiercer is actually pretty terrible)

I think minutes actually needs to be exponential, since minute 156 of a terrible movie is more painful that minute 4.


3. Unfinished stories. The Hobbit, Part 2 of 3, is a notable example. But, I would put Age of Extinction in this camp because of the complete lack of resolution to why Lockdown was on Earth, what happens with Galvatron, and Optimus launching himself into space.

A cliffhanger is fine, but resolve something. Anything.

Empire Strikes Back is one of the few movies that manages to do be an interesting movie despite not having any clear resolution to its major parts. But, it does have a full character arc for Lando, and Han and Leia acknowledging the feelings for one another. So, it does have some resolution.


4. Man of Steel. Oh, this movie is still so bad. Take an icon, and completely fail to grasp anything about why it was beloved in the first place.

A new, fresh take on source material only works when you keep the key elements.

Superman inspires people, except in this movie. Everything else about the character could change (and, over the years, nearly everything has), but the one thing he always does is inspire other people -- unpowered little humans -- to be better than they thought they were. Make him an energy being, have him grow up in Soviet Russia, take away his origin and most of his powers and call him Tom Strong -- and it is still recognizably Superman. Take away his ability to inspire others and you just have Zach Snyder wanting to do Batman who flies.

Ok, the general case of this (not respecting the source material) has counter examples, where the writer and director are using the existing concepts to tell an entirely different story (Battlestar Galactica), or reflect upon changing views in society (compare the two movies of True Grit).

Man of Steel, though, was terrible.


5. Special effects that are too special. Driving the wrong direction on a busy road, navigating an asteroid field, etc. It's too implausible and destroys the suspension of disbelief.


6. Oh, God, not another fucking Jesus metaphor. Hero dies, comes back, and kicks ass.


7. Countdowns to Doom stopped at the last second. It is completely overdone. Stopping the nuclear explosion 2 hours before it would happen rather than 2 seconds would still be cutting it a little close.


8. Stories where we learn that with perseverance and a good heart, the homely man can win the heart of the beautiful woman. -- it sends the message that women are prizes, and that they are worth no more than their appearance.


9. Tinkering with award winning special effects years later. Just stop meddling with Star Wars and release the theatrical versions of the original trilogy.

The original special effects artists were at the top of their game, and produced amazing things with the technology of the time. It devalues their work to replace it. It's like superimposing someone else's face on a character.

Part of the charm was that Yoda was a muppet, the AT-ATs were tiny stop-motion models, and Christian Hayden's face never appeared anywhere. With each new edition, they have chipped away at this (although Yoda is still a muppet... and the AT-ATs were just cleaned up a bit)

Ok, this is a little overly specific. So, the more general pet peeve: producing N different versions, where there is no one definitive version. Director's cuts, theatrical cuts, extended editions... enough.


10. Any movie that attempts to be a campy cult classic. Bruce Campbell films excepted, of course, because he is awesome.

But, in general, no movie will manage to hit the level of delightful terribleness that Showgirls reached accidentally.

[Cappeca]

Em segunda-feira, 21 de julho de 2014 05h41min48s UTC-3, Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats escreveu:
> 8. Stories where we learn that with perseverance and a good heart, the homely man can win the heart of the beautiful woman. -- it sends the message that women are prizes, and that they are worth no more than their appearance.
>

I hate that too. Not only it objectifies women but it also feels like the author has a personal friendzone issue to resolve. Movies like these are about "winning", not about love.

>
> 9. Tinkering with award winning special effects years later. Just stop meddling with Star Wars and release the theatrical versions of the original trilogy.
>
>
> The original special effects artists were at the top of their game, and produced amazing things with the technology of the time. It devalues their work to replace it. It's like superimposing someone else's face on a character.
>

It's *exactly* that!

>
> Part of the charm was that Yoda was a muppet, the AT-ATs were tiny stop-motion models
>

Part of the charm was that Star Wars was a movie with *toys*, like the best toys ever! No wonder it was a revolution. Putting it into CGI killed it.

[Zobovor]

On Monday, July 21, 2014 2:41:48 AM UTC-6, Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats wrote:

> 1. Using a familiar pop song in the background to suggest mood and emotion
> rather than having actors actually act.

The problem with using songs like this is that the producers are relying on them to strike a very specific chord with the audience, and it doesn't always work. Some songs that are supposed to be inspirational, I find cheesy and overused.

I will say that it's funny how only a few seconds of a song are really necessary to strike the right chord in most cases.

> 2. Epic length (also 3D, but that's just a quirk of mine).

I remember when the extra-long films were the exception rather than the rule. Movies like Gone With the Wind or Titanic or King Kong were notable because of it. Now everybody is doing it. Sometimes, it's absolutely necessary. There are a lot of important plot points to hit in the Lord of the Rings trilogy and a standard-length film wouldn't do it justice. Age of Extinction, on the other hand, really didn't need to be as long as it was.

> 3. Unfinished stories.

I'm okay with leaving some plot points dangling if the intent is to film a sequel. I've seen far too many movies that *appear* to be building up to a sequel that never came, though, and that bugs me.

> 4. Man of Steel. Oh, this movie is still so bad. Take an icon, and completely
> fail to grasp anything about why it was beloved in the first place.

I saw that movie but I remember so little about it.

> Make him an energy being, have him grow up in Soviet Russia

In Soviet Russia, kryptonite is weak against Superman!

> 5. Special effects that are too special. Driving the wrong direction on a
> busy road, navigating an asteroid field, etc. It's too implausible and
> destroys the suspension of disbelief.

It depends on the special effects. The delivery guys in Premium Rush were believable, and you really got a sense that they were making instantaneous split-second decisions about navigating through heavy traffic on a bicycle. Stuff like Legolas hopping on the Dwarf heads in The Hobbit? That's just silly.

> 6. Oh, God, not another fucking Jesus metaphor. Hero dies, comes back, and
> kicks ass.

Random trivia: Evan Treborn, the main character from The Butterfly Effect, was originally going to be named Chris Treborn. As in Christ Reborn.

> 7. Countdowns to Doom stopped at the last second.

So trite and clichéd. We need to see this lampshaded where somebody cuts the wire at 00:01 and the bomb explodes anyway.

> 8. Stories where we learn that with perseverance and a good heart, the homely
> man can win the heart of the beautiful woman. -- it sends the message that
> women are prizes, and that they are worth no more than their appearance.

How homely are we talking here? Like, Quasimodo? I think stories like that are trying to send the message that true love transcends physical appearance. I don't agree that every love story treats women as a prize to be won. That was certainly the case with a lot of the cartoons I grew up on (Pepé Le Pew and whatnot) but I don't think it's done much in modern film. Examples?

> 9. Tinkering with award winning special effects years later. Just stop
> meddling with Star Wars and release the theatrical versions of the original
> trilogy.

Me, I happen to like the newer versions of Star Wars. I don't agree with all the changes (how come Ewoks get blinking eyelids but not, say, Greedo?), but I can appreciate the effort to modernize some of the effects and make them more palatable for a modern audience. The old explosions, in particular, looked really dated. Superimposed over top of the TIE Fighter models.

With that said, the original version's already been released to DVD. Crappy explosions and all.

I was originally firmly against adding CGI to E.T., but having seen the improved version, I really like it.

> It's like superimposing someone else's face on a character.

Hayden Christensen ≠ Sebastian Shaw.

> Ok, this is a little overly specific. So, the more general pet peeve:
> producing N different versions, where there is no one definitive version.

Yeah, but "definitive" by what definition? The director, who had a specific vision of the movie? The studio, who is paying for the movie and demanded that 27 minutes be cut from the final print? The censors, who felt that viewing audiences weren't ready for a graphic love scene between a woman and a robot octopus? Every movie has several iterations in existence. We tend to think of the theatrical release as the final, "official" version, but that's a fairly arbitrary way of looking at it. The theatrical release is what we get after the studios and censors are done meddling with the director's vision.

The way there are alternate versions of movies in existence is, I think, akin to how folk stories would change and evolve over time based on the person telling the story. In some ways, film has destroyed the ability for a story to grow and evolve through oral tradition.

> 10. Any movie that attempts to be a campy cult classic.

The best cult films are the ones that don't try to be.


Zob

[Gustavo Wombat]

Zobovor <zm...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Monday, July 21, 2014 2:41:48 AM UTC-6, Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats wrote:

>> 4. Man of Steel. Oh, this movie is still so bad. Take an icon, and completely
>> fail to grasp anything about why it was beloved in the first place.
>
> I saw that movie but I remember so little about it.

I think it is the only movie that actually made me angry, except for
documentaries that are trying to make me angry.

>> 6. Oh, God, not another fucking Jesus metaphor. Hero dies, comes back, and
>> kicks ass.
>
> Random trivia: Evan Treborn, the main character from The Butterfly
> Effect, was originally going to be named Chris Treborn. As in Christ Reborn.

King Faraday from DC comics was named as a pun on "King For A Day" because
his father had a terrible sense of humor. He is possibly the only novelty
named person in the entire DC universe who did not become a super villain
or even a super hero. Just a government agent with a terrible name.

>> 8. Stories where we learn that with perseverance and a good heart, the homely
>> man can win the heart of the beautiful woman. -- it sends the message that
>> women are prizes, and that they are worth no more than their appearance.
>
> How homely are we talking here? Like, Quasimodo? I think stories like
> that are trying to send the message that true love transcends physical
> appearance. I don't agree that every love story treats women as a prize
> to be won. That was certainly the case with a lot of the cartoons I grew
> up on (Pepé Le Pew and whatnot) but I don't think it's done much in modern film. Examples?

Quasimodo, Shia La Boeuf, lots of examples. You almost never see the
opposite in movies, where the attractive man falls for the homely woman
(unless it is a romantic comedy where the "ugly" woman is slightly less
beautiful than the beautiful woman...)

>> 9. Tinkering with award winning special effects years later. Just stop
>> meddling with Star Wars and release the theatrical versions of the original
>> trilogy.
>
> Me, I happen to like the newer versions of Star Wars. I don't agree with
> all the changes (how come Ewoks get blinking eyelids but not, say,
> Greedo?), but I can appreciate the effort to modernize some of the
> effects and make them more palatable for a modern audience. The old
> explosions, in particular, looked really dated. Superimposed over top of
> the TIE Fighter models.

I don't think the original effects are all that unpalatable. And it should
look dated, it was from the 1970s. The prequels should always have armies
of clone troopers fighting battle droids in the uncanny valley, and the new
trilogy should always have whatever shitty technological limits it runs
into. Working with and around the flaws,of the available technology is part
of the craftsmanship of the movie making process.

(However, Jurassic Park should be updated every decade with new dinosaurs
looking like whatever current scientific theory has dinosaurs looking like.
Jurassic Park: now with feathers!)

> With that said, the original version's already been released to DVD.
> Crappy explosions and all.

As the bonus disks to a special edition release, at low resolution (letter
boxed in a standard tv size, letter boxed into widescreen again...). I want
Blu-Ray. I want to see the crappy special effects in all their glory!

I have season 1 of Space: 1999 on BluRay, and it is glorious. At a higher
resolution than it was ever intended to be shown at, the only special
effects that don't look good didn't look good at a lower resolution either.

> I was originally firmly against adding CGI to E.T., but having seen the
> improved version, I really like it.
>
>> It's like superimposing someone else's face on a character.
>
> Hayden Christensen ≠ Sebastian Shaw.

It's messing with history. It's like the Rhino release of the G1
Transformers cartoon -- it's not what you grew up with, and it's not
objectively better, just different.

And Ewoks don't blink. Have you ever heard the expression "back in the
blink of an Ewok?" No? That's because Ewoks don't blink. I rest my case.

>> Ok, this is a little overly specific. So, the more general pet peeve:
>> producing N different versions, where there is no one definitive version.

> Yeah, but "definitive" by what definition? The director, who had a
> specific vision of the movie? The studio, who is paying for the movie
> and demanded that 27 minutes be cut from the final print? The censors,
> who felt that viewing audiences weren't ready for a graphic love scene
> between a woman and a robot octopus? Every movie has several iterations
> in existence. We tend to think of the theatrical release as the final,
> "official" version, but that's a fairly arbitrary way of looking at it.
> The theatrical release is what we get after the studios and censors are
> done meddling with the director's vision.

That's a decent point, but all of those versions are happening at about the
same time. There are reasons for a theatrical length LOTR and an extended
version where you have the power to make it stop while you go to the
bathroom.

But, back to the specific -- I don't think that the George Lucas of 2010
has the same vision of the original trilogy as he did 30 years previous.
He's just messing with it because he can.

I would sort of love a Star Wars Holiday Special Special Edition though --
but no one holds that in any regard. Jefferson Starship is so dated, so
replace them either with a more current lineup, or Miley Cyrus. Diahann
Caroll's segment could be redone with an actual porn star, but make her up
to be at least a little Wookiie-esque. And the cartoon should be redone in
CGI. The reused clips of starships in space could be updated to reuse the
clips from the special editions of the source material. Also, R2-D2 should
fly while Luke isn't looking at him -- and maybe bleep out "Darth Vader is
your father, and he built C-3PO" and have everyone think it's just a joke.

> The way there are alternate versions of movies in existence is, I think,
> akin to how folk stories would change and evolve over time based on the
> person telling the story. In some ways, film has destroyed the ability
> for a story to grow and evolve through oral tradition.

There are some amazing fan edits of the various Star Wars movies out there,
which do radically different things with the stories. That's where you have
your folk tradition coming in. And it's awesome. The special editions have
no reimagining or reinterpreting the story, just a slightly flashier
render.

Consider two versions of "Daytripper", one by a Beatles tribute band, and
one by the hair metal band Whitesnake. The special editions are the former
-- overly reverent to what came before, and adding nothing original, just
with a better mixing board. Whitesnake's version of "Daytripper" is kind of
a disaster from start to finish, but they are making something new out of
it.



Pet Peeve #11. Scenes and images stolen from Hitchcock's "North By
Northwest". The poor movie is almost unwatchable now as it is just one
cliche after another because everything has been copied so many times.

[Travoltron]

On 7/21/2014 11:56 PM, Gustavo Wombat wrote:
> Quasimodo, Shia La Boeuf, lots of examples. You almost never see the
> opposite in movies, where the attractive man falls for the homely woman
> (unless it is a romantic comedy where the "ugly" woman is slightly less
> beautiful than the beautiful woman...)

I don't watch chick flicks, but I'm pretty sure that kind of thing does
happen in them.

What do you think of something like Pretty Woman? Where the message is
that you can be a literal whore, but as long as you have a heart of
gold, you can win the heart of a prince charming.

But you are right, these sort of things send a bad message. Most of
these things these guys do to win over the woman would get them slapped
with a sexual harassment restraining order in real life.

[Judoon]

Gustavo Wombat <gustav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I have season 1 of Space: 1999 on BluRay, and it is glorious. At a higher
> resolution than it was ever intended to be shown at, the only special
> effects that don't look good didn't look good at a lower resolution either.
>

I'm ordering this tonight. Reminds me to check for Lost In Space (not the
movie). I just upgraded Battlestar Galactica (2003) and Farscape to
Blu-Ray, and the difference is amazing!

> Pet Peeve #11. Scenes and images stolen from Hitchcock's "North By
> Northwest". The poor movie is almost unwatchable now as it is just one
> cliche after another because everything has been copied so many times.

Completely agreed.


Thaddeus Cultt
--
Damn lying squirrels!

[Judoon]

Still gets labeled as Digital Video Disc.

I still have my original WORM drive around here somewhere.

[Judoon]

Zobovor <zm...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Monday, July 21, 2014 2:41:48 AM UTC-6, Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats wrote:
>
> Me, I happen to like the newer versions of Star Wars. I don't agree with
> all the changes (how come Ewoks get blinking eyelids but not, say,
> Greedo?), but I can appreciate the effort to modernize some of the
> effects and make them more palatable for a modern audience. The old
> explosions, in particular, looked really dated. Superimposed over top of
> the TIE Fighter models.
>

I think Episodes 1-3 are some of the worse Sci-fi films ever created. I've
never been a huge Star Wars fan as pretty much Lucas stole scenes from
other genres, but the first three were beyond bad. Maybe not Cloverfield or
LOTRs bad, but they made Red Dwarf look brilliant.

> With that said, the original version's already been released to DVD.
> Crappy explosions and all.
>

When was the original version released to DVD? I remember the VHS set, but
not the DVD one.

> I was originally firmly against adding CGI to E.T., but having seen the
> improved version, I really like it.
>

Bugs me that they digitally removed the government agents guns and replaced
them with radios.

[Zobovor]

On Monday, August 11, 2014 7:53:58 AM UTC-6, Judoon wrote:

> When was the original version released to DVD? I remember the VHS set, but
> not the DVD one.

There was a Star Wars DVD set that came out in 2006. It had episodes IV, V, and VI together (plus some random stupid bonus disc), and each movie came with a second disc that included the original theatrical editions.

It was marketed as the "Limited Edition" (the first time, I believe, they stopped making distinctions between the original films and the CGI-enhanced "Special Edition") with a gold banner across the top.


Zob

[Zobovor]

On Monday, August 11, 2014 7:53:58 AM UTC-6, Judoon wrote:

> Bugs me that they digitally removed the government agents guns and replaced
> them with radios.

Oh, I forgot to comment on this. I was against this idea when I first heard about it, but does it really change the movie, in the long run? There are just a bunch of government guys chasing down a space alien. What does it matter whether they're carrying guns or walkie-talkies or flashlights or Krispy Kreme donuts?

The fact that they did some CGI to E.T. himself really helps to make the character more expressive. It sells him as a living thing in a way that the original puppet didn't quite manage.

Remember this chick?

http://tinyurl.com/snootles

That's Sy Snootles, one of Jabba the Hutt's singers in Return of the Jedi. She was a rod puppet who was literally mounted to the floor, and all she could really do is jiggle around and lift her leg. When they did a CGI version of her, they went way, waaaaaaay too far in the other direction and just turned her into this bizarre caricature of herself.

http://tinyurl.com/snootles-cgi

I was afraid that was going to happen to E.T., but it didn't. They went really low-key and tasteful with the CGI, enhancing scenes rather than destroying them. He's so un-cartoony that I have trouble telling which scenes are entirely CG, which ones are the original puppet, and which ones are composites of both.


Zob

[Cappeca]

Em segunda-feira, 11 de agosto de 2014 22h17min50s UTC-3, Zobovor escreveu:
> > Bugs me that they digitally removed the government agents guns and replaced
> > them with radios.
>
>
> Oh, I forgot to comment on this. I was against this idea when I first heard about it, but does it really change the movie, in the long run? There are just a bunch of government guys chasing down a space alien. What does it matter whether they're carrying guns or walkie-talkies or flashlights or Krispy Kreme donuts?

Their intention is totally changed. Guns and flashlights are used to kill or beat someone. Radios are for good government guys, which is an oxymoron, and donuts would mean they'd give up that chase in a second.

>
> The fact that they did some CGI to E.T. himself really helps to make the character more expressive. It sells him as a living thing in a way that the original puppet didn't quite manage.

It does, that was good CGI right there. I can't believe how the same people (?) screwed up Yoda so bad in the prequels.

[Zobovor]

On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 7:36:05 AM UTC-6, Cappeca wrote:

> Their intention is totally changed. Guns and flashlights are used to kill or
> beat someone.

I guess I just don't see how it's that important. Most of the government guys after E.T. don't even get any meaningful dialogue. They're just there to be the stereotypical Bad Guys. They just run around and chase our heroes. It's not like there's a pivotal scene where one of them has E.T. at gunpoint and now the meaning of the scene is completely altered because he's menacingly pointing a walkie-talkie at him instead.

> It does, that was good CGI right there. I can't believe how the same people

> screwed up Yoda so bad in the prequels.

Are we talking about the "young" Yoda puppet from Episode I? That was pretty terrible. In later versions they actually replaced that puppet with CGI that's closer to his appearance from Episodes II and III. I realize this is heresy but I actually wouldn't mind it if they replaced him with CGI in the original trilogy. It would still be Frank Oz's voice performance, which is the true heart of the character.


Zob

[Judoon]

Cappeca <cap...@godisdead.com> wrote:
> Em segunda-feira, 11 de agosto de 2014 22h17min50s UTC-3, Zobovor escreveu:
>>> Bugs me that they digitally removed the government agents guns and replaced
>>> them with radios.
>>
>>
>> Oh, I forgot to comment on this. I was against this idea when I first
>> heard about it, but does it really change the movie, in the long run?
>> There are just a bunch of government guys chasing down a space alien.
>> What does it matter whether they're carrying guns or walkie-talkies or
>> flashlights or Krispy Kreme donuts?
>
> Their intention is totally changed. Guns and flashlights are used to kill
> or beat someone. Radios are for good government guys, which is an
> oxymoron, and donuts would mean they'd give up that chase in a second.

Agreed.

>
>>
>> The fact that they did some CGI to E.T. himself really helps to make the
>> character more expressive. It sells him as a living thing in a way that
>> the original puppet didn't quite manage.
>
> It does, that was good CGI right there. I can't believe how the same
> people (?) screwed up Yoda so bad in the prequels.

--
Damn lying squirrels!

[Judoon]

Zobovor <zm...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 11, 2014 7:53:58 AM UTC-6, Judoon wrote:
>
>> Bugs me that they digitally removed the government agents guns and replaced
>> them with radios.
>
> Oh, I forgot to comment on this. I was against this idea when I first
> heard about it, but does it really change the movie, in the long run?
> There are just a bunch of government guys chasing down a space alien.

>

It falls into the "sanitized for your protection" realm. Let's make the law
enforcement kind and gentle people who just happen to want to dissect the
alien. I would ask why is it such a big deal that Bay's Transformers films
aren't identical to a 30 year old cartoon? It just feels like how there
were people that wanted to edit classic movies to remove cigarette smoking.

> The fact that they did some CGI to E.T. himself really helps to make the
> character more expressive. It sells him as a living thing in a way that
> the original puppet didn't quite manage.

Like how a race of alien robots might retaliate against a world that they
helped to protect, while being lied to, hunted down and killed by them.
Seems they just might fight back.

>
> Remember this chick?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/snootles
>
> That's Sy Snootles, one of Jabba the Hutt's singers in Return of the
> Jedi. She was a rod puppet who was literally mounted to the floor, and
> all she could really do is jiggle around and lift her leg. When they did
> a CGI version of her, they went way, waaaaaaay too far in the other
> direction and just turned her into this bizarre caricature of herself.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/snootles-cgi
>

To tell the truth, I would have forgotten the scenes completely, the whole
Star Wars series of films just didn't impress me all that much. Lucas did a
fine job at regurgitating past period films into a space saga. It was a
different spin on things, but nothing new. We had knights on a religious
crusade, a dictator who wanted genocide, and later some chariot races.

> I was afraid that was going to happen to E.T., but it didn't. They went
> really low-key and tasteful with the CGI, enhancing scenes rather than
> destroying them. He's so un-cartoony that I have trouble telling which
> scenes are entirely CG, which ones are the original puppet, and which
> ones are composites of both.
>

I just think that going the political correct route on guns was a cop out.
Why not change it so the government wanted to help the little lost alien
get home, and they could have joined hands and had a sing-a-long. Hiding
the guns didn't change the fact that that wanted to gut the little guy.

[Judoon]

Thanks for the info. I'm not that big of a SW fan, so I'm not overly
bothered by the changes, in fact the matting effect that occurred in the
space scenes in the original I always found annoying, but I do like to find
facts about films.

[Zobovor]

On Thursday, October 2, 2014 3:51:01 PM UTC-6, Judoon wrote:

> It falls into the "sanitized for your protection" realm. Let's make the law
> enforcement kind and gentle people who just happen to want to dissect the
> alien. I would ask why is it such a big deal that Bay's Transformers films
> aren't identical to a 30 year old cartoon? It just feels like how there
> were people that wanted to edit classic movies to remove cigarette smoking.

You're kind of addressing three separate issues all at once. To wit:

1) I have read that in the original cut of the film, all the federal agents were holding ice cream cones. When Spielberg screened the movie for an audience, including President Ronald Reagan, they felt the agents were not threatening enough so the scene was altered and the ice cream cones were replaced with guns. So, actually, taking the guns out makes the new version of E.T. *closer* to the original edition.

2) Nobody's expecting the live-action movies to be one hundred percent identical to the G1 cartoon. That's really kind of a straw man statement because you're arguing against something that people never said. The thing about adaptations, though, is you have to stay somewhat true to the source material. The more you diverge from it, the less faithful an adaptation it becomes. There are some films that are so wildly different than what they're allegedly based on that they're basically updates in name only (the Lost in Space movie from 1999 comes to mind).

3) In principle, I can agree that editing older movies is generally unfavorable. At the same time, though, we're living in a different era than when many of those films were made, and I can sympathize with the desire to make them more palatable for a modern audience.

Specifically, smoking scenes in films kind of bother me now. I don't want my kids seeing this portrayed as a normal everyday event. That's how it was in the 1980's, but times have changed. If I'm watching a movie or a show and a character starts smoking, I like them less. I think it's kind of disgusting. For me, it's roughly the equivalent of, say, starting to pick their nose. It's just something I don't want to see. I get that smoking was a cultural staple for a really long time, and you could argue that there are some films that would be ruined by its complete removal. I hate when it pops up in otherwise kid-friendly productions, though (like Short Circuit 2, for example).

> > The fact that they did some CGI to E.T. himself really helps to make the
> > character more expressive. It sells him as a living thing in a way that
> > the original puppet didn't quite manage.
>
> Like how a race of alien robots might retaliate against a world that they
> helped to protect, while being lied to, hunted down and killed by them.
> Seems they just might fight back.

Guh? Are you responding to my quoted text? You're raising a valid point, but it seems like a strange response to what I said. It's pretty much a non sequitur.

Well, okay. Yes, the Autobots in the movies had a valid reason to be upset. As you said, "the humans" (collectively) lied to them and betrayed them. Let's flip it around and look at it from the other side of things. As far as the humans are concerned, "the robots" (collectively) murdered countless hundreds or thousands and demolished major cities.

Obviously, not every human lied to the Autobots and not every robot was responsible for trashing Chicago. That's the problem when you lump everybody together like that. For the Autobots to just up and dismiss the humans, collectively, is as blind as foolish as humans are usually accused of being in Transformers stories.


Zob

[Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats]

On Thursday, October 2, 2014 5:55:57 PM UTC-7, Zobovor wrote:
> On Thursday, October 2, 2014 3:51:01 PM UTC-6, Judoon wrote:
>
>
>
> > It falls into the "sanitized for your protection" realm. Let's make the law
> > enforcement kind and gentle people who just happen to want to dissect the
> > alien. I would ask why is it such a big deal that Bay's Transformers films
> > aren't identical to a 30 year old cartoon? It just feels like how there
> > were people that wanted to edit classic movies to remove cigarette smoking.
>
> You're kind of addressing three separate issues all at once. To wit:
>
> 1) I have read that in the original cut of the film, all the federal agents were holding ice cream cones. When Spielberg screened the movie for an audience, including President Ronald Reagan, they felt the agents were not threatening enough so the scene was altered and the ice cream cones were replaced with guns. So, actually, taking the guns out makes the new version of E.T. *closer* to the original edition.

Also, Ronald Reagan was the original monster in Alien, but people found him too frightening, so they hired H. R. Geiger to do something else.

> 2) Nobody's expecting the live-action movies to be one hundred percent identical to the G1 cartoon. That's really kind of a straw man statement because you're arguing against something that people never said. The thing about adaptations, though, is you have to stay somewhat true to the source material. The more you diverge from it, the less faithful an adaptation it becomes. There are some films that are so wildly different than what they're allegedly based on that they're basically updates in name only (the Lost in Space movie from 1999 comes to mind).

I think that if it were very faithful to the G1 cartoon, it would be almost unwatchable. So, really, about the same...

The cartoon and the recent movies are for very different audiences* and at very different times, so significant adaptation is required.

The "good guys are all really good, and the bad guys are all really bad" mentality of the cartoon would be considered overly simplistic and condescending, when most of our movie heroes tend to be flawed, and many films try to present the villains as having motivations beyond just themselves.

So, we get an Optimus Prime who kills for fun, racist stereotype robots, and villains who have the saving grace of trying to kill those horrible, horrible heroes.

* I mean, theoretically, the Bay movies are for people outside the range of the target audience for the toys or something.

> 3) In principle, I can agree that editing older movies is generally unfavorable. At the same time, though, we're living in a different era than when many of those films were made, and I can sympathize with the desire to make them more palatable for a modern audience.

That's what remakes are for. Don't just tinker around the edges -- if the story as told no longer works for a modern audience, then tell it again. Or tell a new story.

Modifying the original just feels like revisionist history to me. Greedo shoots first, the Federales in ET are kindly people who just want to help ET by dissecting him offscreen, and Masturbov was never standing next to Stalin, and the Republicans are the party of Lincoln so never mind the past 50 years when the Dixiecrats became Republicans, etc.

> Specifically, smoking scenes in films kind of bother me now. I don't want my kids seeing this portrayed as a normal everyday event. That's how it was in the 1980's, but times have changed. If I'm watching a movie or a show and a character starts smoking, I like them less. I think it's kind of disgusting. For me, it's roughly the equivalent of, say, starting to pick their nose. It's just something I don't want to see. I get that smoking was a cultural staple for a really long time, and you could argue that there are some films that would be ruined by its complete removal. I hate when it pops up in otherwise kid-friendly productions, though (like Short Circuit 2, for example).

I think you have issues.

Actually, if Disney were to re-edit the Star Wars Prequels, and replace the voices of a lot of the aliens to be something other than horrible racial stereotypes, I would be torn.

We might lose the fine voice work of Ahmed Best and Silas Carson, but on the other hand, it would be so much less offensive. (I don't think Lucas meant to make offensive stereotypes with the accents of his aliens, but they are clearly frequently interpreted that way).

I think generally reworking movies is a mistake, but I think I am willing to make an exception for fixing accidental racism -- but even there, I would feel better about it if it happened quickly, rather than decades after the fact.

Also, replacing the voices of Mudflap and Skids to be refined English gentlemen, and rewriting all of their lines in ROTF would be hysterical and also acceptable...

[Irrellius Spamticon of the Potato People.]

On Thursday, October 2, 2014 10:22:33 PM UTC-5, Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats wrote:
> On Thursday, October 2, 2014 5:55:57 PM UTC-7, Zobovor wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, October 2, 2014 3:51:01 PM UTC-6, Judoon wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > It falls into the "sanitized for your protection" realm. Let's make the law
>
> > > enforcement kind and gentle people who just happen to want to dissect the
>
> > > alien. I would ask why is it such a big deal that Bay's Transformers films
>
> > > aren't identical to a 30 year old cartoon? It just feels like how there
>
> > > were people that wanted to edit classic movies to remove cigarette smoking.
>
> >
>
> > You're kind of addressing three separate issues all at once. To wit:
>
> >
>
> > 1) I have read that in the original cut of the film, all the federal agents were holding ice cream cones. When Spielberg screened the movie for an audience, including President Ronald Reagan, they felt the agents were not threatening enough so the scene was altered and the ice cream cones were replaced with guns. So, actually, taking the guns out makes the new version of E.T. *closer* to the original edition.
>
>
>
> Also, Ronald Reagan was the original monster in Alien, but people found him too frightening, so they hired H. R. Geiger to do something else.
>
>
>
> > 2) Nobody's expecting the live-action movies to be one hundred percent identical to the G1 cartoon. That's really kind of a straw man statement because you're arguing against something that people never said. The thing about adaptations, though, is you have to stay somewhat true to the source material. The more you diverge from it, the less faithful an adaptation it becomes. There are some films that are so wildly different than what they're allegedly based on that they're basically updates in name only (the Lost in Space movie from 1999 comes to mind).
>

1998 godzilla

>
>
> I think that if it were very faithful to the G1 cartoon, it would be almost unwatchable. So, really, about the same...
>
>
>
> The cartoon and the recent movies are for very different audiences* and at very different times, so significant adaptation is required.
>
>
>
> The "good guys are all really good, and the bad guys are all really bad" mentality of the cartoon would be considered overly simplistic and condescending, when most of our movie heroes tend to be flawed, and many films try to present the villains as having motivations beyond just themselves.
>
> So, we get an Optimus Prime who kills for fun, racist stereotype robots, and villains who have the saving grace of trying to kill those horrible, horrible heroes.
>

Trying to make the characters interesting and give them depth in a limited 3 hour timetable is hard, so they ham it up with stock character archetypes that the audience will identify from previous media to the point that the characters aren't likable or relatable.

> * I mean, theoretically, the Bay movies are for people outside the range of the target audience for the toys or something.
>

The Bay movies keep getting aimed at an increasingly older audience where the toys seem to be getting more for younger audiences.

>
> > 3) In principle, I can agree that editing older movies is generally unfavorable. At the same time, though, we're living in a different era than when many of those films were made, and I can sympathize with the desire to make them more palatable for a modern audience.
>
>
>
> That's what remakes are for. Don't just tinker around the edges -- if the story as told no longer works for a modern audience, then tell it again. Or tell a new story.
>

I think the problem is that they don't know what is appropriate for a modern audience. I get frustrated at movies that put all their budget into effects and big name stars and then the story makes no sense and the characters spout inane drivel not relevant to the story. Stop treating the audience like they are morons, studies show even children can follow complex and interweaving stories if it is presented as a relevant theme in the movie.

>
> > Specifically, smoking scenes in films kind of bother me now. I don't want my kids seeing this portrayed as a normal everyday event. That's how it was in the 1980's, but times have changed. If I'm watching a movie or a show and a character starts smoking, I like them less. I think it's kind of disgusting. For me, it's roughly the equivalent of, say, starting to pick their nose. It's just something I don't want to see. I get that smoking was a cultural staple for a really long time, and you could argue that there are some films that would be ruined by its complete removal. I hate when it pops up in otherwise kid-friendly productions, though (like Short Circuit 2, for example).
>

I never liked smoking in movies, even as a kid. I knew it was supposed to be "sexy" but at the time my family members were dropping right and left from lung cancer, which we knew was from smoking even though big tobacco wouldn't admit it then.

>
> I think you have issues.
>
>
>
> Actually, if Disney were to re-edit the Star Wars Prequels, and replace the voices of a lot of the aliens to be something other than horrible racial stereotypes, I would be torn.
>

What if they just replaced it with people they had on their Disney channel shows?

>
> We might lose the fine voice work of Ahmed Best and Silas Carson, but on the other hand, it would be so much less offensive. (I don't think Lucas meant to make offensive stereotypes with the accents of his aliens, but they are clearly frequently interpreted that way).
>
>
>
> I think generally reworking movies is a mistake, but I think I am willing to make an exception for fixing accidental racism -- but even there, I would feel better about it if it happened quickly, rather than decades after the fact.
>

An edit now would be pointless on ROTF, nobody would see it.

>
> Also, replacing the voices of Mudflap and Skids to be refined English gentlemen, and rewriting all of their lines in ROTF would be hysterical and also acceptable...

The line for Skids and mudflap that bothered me the most was just about them not being able to read. If they just said they couldn't read stuff specifically that old, instead of indicating they just plain couldn't read.

[Cappeca]

Em sexta-feira, 3 de outubro de 2014 00h22min33s UTC-3, Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats escreveu:
>
> The "good guys are all really good, and the bad guys are all really bad" mentality of the cartoon would be considered overly simplistic and condescending, when most of our movie heroes tend to be flawed, and many films try to present the villains as having motivations beyond just themselves.

Well, there's that. But if you're a writer and you're unable to understand the nuances of human psychology enough to build good characters and good story dealing with gray morality, stick to the black and white. Otherwise you end up with stuff like the 90's Darker and Edgier comics.

[Cappeca]

Em quinta-feira, 2 de outubro de 2014 21h55min57s UTC-3, Zobovor escreveu:
>
> Specifically, smoking scenes in films kind of bother me now.

I have an issue with people who have issues with smoking if they don't have the same issues with drinking.

[Zobovor]

On Friday, October 3, 2014 7:47:24 AM UTC-6, Cappeca wrote:

> I have an issue with people who have issues with smoking if they don't have
> the same issues with drinking.

Cappeca has opened up a can of worms without even realizing it. The worms cannot slither back into the can. The worms are now everywhere.

Point #1: There is not, as far as I know, a movement to remove drinking scenes from films. This is not entirely relevant to the discussion.

Point #2: Unlike the public perception of smoking, which has undergone something of a dramatic shift, drinking is still generally considered socially acceptable as long as conditions are met (i.e., not drinking and driving, not getting drunk and beating your spouse, not underage drinking, etc.)

As an aside, it's only in the past year or two that I've actually seen bong use depicted in film/television (the TV series Wilfred, specifically, and the movie Ted). Either I've just been missing it all this time, or they've relaxed broadcast standards sufficiently to allow it. I haven't decided how I feel about it yet.

Point #3: It does bother me but in a different way. Gustavo thinks I have issues about smoking? My mom smoked, but at least it didn't transform her into a monster. My father was an alcoholic and terrified the fuck out of me when I was a child. I could come home from school and he'd either be friendly and helpful or he'd be surly and combative, and I had no way of knowing which it would be on a given day until he was chasing me up the stairs and throwing me on the bed and saying things like "I didn't hurt you; I only hurt your feelings." Suffice to say, I don't drink. There are surely people in this world who can drink responsibly, but in the meantime, I hate that it even exists. It's one of the only mind-altering drugs that's legal. If it were up to me, I would refuse to sell it when I'm running a cash register and somebody comes through my line wanting to buy some.

There you go. Issues.

Point #4: As a burgeoning fiction writer, I recognize the enormous appeal of allowing getting characters to get drunk. It allows them to relax their inhibitions and stop playing all the games that people play and actually reveal some deep and meaningful stuff through dialogue. That's a really powerful tool available to me. I don't know that I would ever write a character smoking, if only because it doesn't allow me any additional insights into a character (except perhaps that he enjoys to kill himself very slowly, I suppose).

Point #5: The Perks of Being a Wallflower bothered me on so many levels.


Zob

[Gustavo Wombat]

Pet Peeve #12: The weird lack of middle aged women that actually look
middle aged and are actual characters who appear in multiple scenes.

Often, men are allowed to age, but women are expected to vanish and then
return when they look elderly, and preferably sassy, grumpy or wise.

Transformers 1-3 actually got this right, hard as it is to say about
anything -- Judy looks like someone who could have a 16-22 year old kid.
Transformers 4 leaves the equivalent role vacant by making Cade a
widower...


Pet Peeve #13: No Scientific Advisor for the script

This isn't just plot holes, this is plot holes that require being dumb. Ice
sinks in GI Joe; they microwave water supplies in Gotham to make them boil,
but the people don't pop like popcorn in Batman Begins; almost every
reference to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

It's hard to look past physics not working.



Pet Peeve #14: Only minor characters are minorities

So, so very condescending. Count the minority characters in the 2007
Transformers movie, and then ponder if any of them are anything other than
comic relief for the main plot.

[Gustavo Wombat]

Zobovor <zm...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Friday, October 3, 2014 7:47:24 AM UTC-6, Cappeca wrote:
>
>> I have an issue with people who have issues with smoking if they don't have
>> the same issues with drinking.
>
> Cappeca has opened up a can of worms without even realizing it. The
> worms cannot slither back into the can. The worms are now everywhere.
>
> Point #1: There is not, as far as I know, a movement to remove drinking
> scenes from films. This is not entirely relevant to the discussion.
>
> Point #2: Unlike the public perception of smoking, which has undergone
> something of a dramatic shift, drinking is still generally considered
> socially acceptable as long as conditions are met (i.e., not drinking and
> driving, not getting drunk and beating your spouse, not underage drinking, etc.)
>
> As an aside, it's only in the past year or two that I've actually seen
> bong use depicted in film/television (the TV series Wilfred,
> specifically, and the movie Ted). Either I've just been missing it all
> this time, or they've relaxed broadcast standards sufficiently to allow
> it. I haven't decided how I feel about it yet.

Fringe had one of the main characters taking acid, and abusing
pharmaceuticals. It was just part of his quirky charm.

And, there were the Cheech and Chong movies... Although I don't know if
they were ever broadcast.

> Point #3: It does bother me but in a different way. Gustavo thinks I
> have issues about smoking? My mom smoked, but at least it didn't
> transform her into a monster.

I didn't mean you have issues about smoking, it is a little vile. I mean
that you have issues involving wanting to censor artwork of the past to fit
(your) contemporary standards. It's like putting a loincloth of
Michelangelo's David, or a burka on the Mona Lisa.

> My father was an alcoholic and terrified the fuck out of me when I was a
> child. I could come home from school and he'd either be friendly and
> helpful or he'd be surly and combative, and I had no way of knowing which
> it would be on a given day until he was chasing me up the stairs and
> throwing me on the bed and saying things like "I didn't hurt you; I only
> hurt your feelings." Suffice to say, I don't drink. There are surely
> people in this world who can drink responsibly, but in the meantime, I
> hate that it even exists. It's one of the only mind-altering drugs
> that's legal. If it were up to me, I would refuse to sell it when I'm
> running a cash register and somebody comes through my line wanting to buy some.

If you make this a religious objection, you might be able to get away with
it. Much like the pharmacists who will not fulfill prescriptions for the
morning after pill.

> There you go. Issues.
>
> Point #4: As a burgeoning fiction writer, I recognize the enormous
> appeal of allowing getting characters to get drunk. It allows them to
> relax their inhibitions and stop playing all the games that people play
> and actually reveal some deep and meaningful stuff through dialogue.
> That's a really powerful tool available to me. I don't know that I would
> ever write a character smoking, if only because it doesn't allow me any
> additional insights into a character (except perhaps that he enjoys to
> kill himself very slowly, I suppose).

On the subject of the world going to hell in a hand basket because of loose
morals, a preview of the next issue of "Batgirl" (there's a new creative
team, and they are trying to fix the terrible decisions of the last
creative team, so this really is a reintroduction) depicts her having
gotten so drunk binge drinking that in the morning she does not recognize
the guy she was making out with, and who her roommate had to separate her
from (presumably before she slept with him in a state where she could not
meaningfully consent, as a flashback showed her having taken off his
shirt).

[Zobovor]

On Saturday, October 4, 2014 3:16:53 AM UTC-6, Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats wrote:

> Pet Peeve #12: The weird lack of middle aged women that actually look
> middle aged and are actual characters who appear in multiple scenes.

Seems like television used to embrace actors in the 30-40ish age group (1960's Star Trek; Cheers) but there seems to be a more recent trend for shows to be populated by 20-somethings (Friends; Star Trek Voyager). I get that this is the viewing audience they're trying to appeal to, but there are so many of these young whippersnappers who don't know how to act.

> It's hard to look past physics not working.

Apparently there is a subset of the Big Bang Theory fandom who watches the show only so they can nitpick it to death and look smarter than the alleged scientist characters on the show. I don't think there's any fictional universe that corresponds precisely to reality, though, is there? Even the space battles in Star Wars would be impossible without an atmosphere, since all the ships fly as if they were aeroplanes.

> Pet Peeve #14: Only minor characters are minorities

In some ways I think that tokenism is even more offensive than racism. Both are patently obvious for what they are, but tokenism is dishonest because you're pretending that your fictional world is racially balanced when it's really not. There's an article on cracked.com about how one of the minor characters in the Harry Potter series was African-American, but then that same character was actually recast as a Caucasian when the character got a slightly meatier role. That sends the message that it was okay for there to be a black student at Hogwarts as long as he was relegated to a background role.

Of course, that raises the issue of demographics. If your lead character is, say, an Asian female, there's an unspoken message that your program is intended for an Asian audience. Put that same character in a supporting role and it changes the demographics (as long as it's a white character in the leading role). Generally, I think children's programming manages to circumvent this more successfully than adult programming. Shows like Dora the Explorer or Doc McStuffins are clearly not meant "only" for little girls of Hispanic or African descent. I can't think of any mainstream TV series with an Hispanic or African female as the main character. Of course, I also don't watch a lot of TV.


Zob

[Irrellius Spamticon of the Potato People.]

On Saturday, October 4, 2014 4:16:56 AM UTC-5, Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats wrote:
> If you make this a religious objection, you might be able to get away with
> it. Much like the pharmacists who will not fulfill prescriptions for the
> morning after pill.
>

Pharmacists get away with much much more. A pharmacist refused to fill my ex's prescription for anti-psychotics because his religion said mental illness wasn't a real thing, and that the best medicine is faith. He became a pharmacist for the express purpose of refusing to give people medications his faith said were evil.

[Irrellius Spamticon of the Potato People.]

On Saturday, October 4, 2014 4:16:53 AM UTC-5, Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats wrote:
> Pet Peeve #13: No Scientific Advisor for the script
>
> This isn't just plot holes, this is plot holes that require being dumb. Ice
> sinks in GI Joe; they microwave water supplies in Gotham to make them boil,
> but the people don't pop like popcorn in Batman Begins; almost every
> reference to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
>
> It's hard to look past physics not working.
>

A movie in theaters recently really upset me for this reason. The movie "Lucy" asks "What if humans used more than 10% of their brains?" The answer is that we would experience life as we currently are. The movie's answer is that we would become psychic action ninjas. I couldn't bring myself to even attempt the movie knowing the entire movie was completely based on bullshit.

[Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats]

On Saturday, October 4, 2014 5:51:10 AM UTC-7, Zobovor wrote:
> On Saturday, October 4, 2014 3:16:53 AM UTC-6, Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats wrote:
>
> > It's hard to look past physics not working.
>
> Apparently there is a subset of the Big Bang Theory fandom who watches the show only so they can nitpick it to death and look smarter than the alleged scientist characters on the show. I don't think there's any fictional universe that corresponds precisely to reality, though, is there? Even the space battles in Star Wars would be impossible without an atmosphere, since all the ships fly as if they were aeroplanes.

There's clearly some fuzzy boundary between what a viewer can and cannot accept, and it's likely to differ by the viewer.

Some things are just conventions of the medium, and we accept them even though basically everyone knows they are false. Sounds in space, for instance.

Others look more "realistic" than what would really happen, since reality ends up looking really weird and unlike what we would normally experience: spaceships flying like airplanes, for instance.

Some are things that the vast majority of people just don't understand: the Heisenberg uncertainty principle makes me groan every time it is mentioned in a story (less so when it is used as a metaphor by a character, since then we can just sigh and think the character doesn't understand it). The "people use 10% of their brains" thing fits into here, too.

And then, you have the things that a layperson should be able to figure out. Ice sinking (GI Joe), microwaving people will no ill effects (Batman Begins), a hotel built with hydrogen fuel cells blowing up like the Hindenberg (some James Bond movie, skip whether hydrogen fuel cells are explosive, you wouldn't build a hotel with high explosives in every room...)...

It's that last group that are the ones that completely ruin movies. (fine, GI Joe was ruined long before that)

[Judoon]

Even something as simple as a car exploding into a fireball because it was
shot. This is being done a lot with C5 lately. Also how come most hacking
becomes an old wire-frame Unix type OS?

[Judoon]

On one hand, I find this quite offensive, bot on the other hand I can
understand some of this. I know that their were many computer jobs I turned
down (usually building a system for, or training) on the grounds I was
dealing with someone wha too stupid to own a computer. Then again I worked
for myself at the time, and didn't need the work. Also I got prescriptions
only once at Walmart, and they tried to give me these shit Walmart brand
insulin needles, telling me they were cheaper, but charging my insurance
twice as much as Rite Aid for name brand.


Also our Walmart only hires ass-monkeys in electronics. Selling laptops
with Windows 8 and Atom processors, Chromebooks at all, and telling people
the only tablets they carry are iPads, when they have 5 different Android
ones available, but it doesn't matter because they all use the same
software.

[Judoon]

I'm not sure if she counts as a main character, but Zoë from Firefly was
one of the strongest characters in the series. Then again Friends NYC
didn't have any African-American living there. I think that maybe this
won't be an issue if we were all just Americans, but people still see
colors in people. You don't see people still actively using
Italian-American, Scottish-American, Redneck-American (or NASCAR-Amarican,
same thing.)

[Judoon]

Gustavo Wombat <gustav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Fringe had one of the main characters taking acid, and abusing
> pharmaceuticals. It was just part of his quirky charm.
>

Walter was just that kind of character. His personality was just acceptable

Now I really don't know how good Breaking Bad would have been if that
Walter was making bootlaces videos over meth. I kinda feel the drugs were
required.

> And, there were the Cheech and Chong movies... Although I don't know if
> they were ever broadcast.
>

I remember that when I has a kid I watched them, and found them somewhat
funny, but a few years ago I tried to watch one, and couldn't stand ten
minuets. Then again Harold and Kumar have replaced them.

Also, I could imagine House without his Vicodin.

> I didn't mean you have issues about smoking, it is a little vile. I mean
> that you have issues involving wanting to censor artwork of the past to fit
> (your) contemporary standards. It's like putting a loincloth of
> Michelangelo's David, or a burka on the Mona Lisa.
>

I like the enology.

>
> If you make this a religious objection, you might be able to get away with
> it. Much like the pharmacists who will not fulfill prescriptions for the
> morning after pill.
>

I just see this as not wanting to do their job. If your job is filling
prescriptions, and you don't like it, flip burgers at McDonalds, I'm sure
they can be replaced with someone who doesn't take orders from an imaginary
friend. Did you notice if you talk To God, your religious - if God talks to
you, your psychotic.

Also when the winning sports team thanks God for for the win, does that
mean God purposely made the other team loose. Does he make bets?

>
> On the subject of the world going to hell in a hand basket because of loose
> morals, a preview of the next issue of "Batgirl" (there's a new creative
> team, and they are trying to fix the terrible decisions of the last
> creative team, so this really is a reintroduction) depicts her having
> gotten so drunk binge drinking that in the morning she does not recognize
> the guy she was making out with, and who her roommate had to separate her
> from (presumably before she slept with him in a state where she could not
> meaningfully consent, as a flashback showed her having taken off his
> shirt).

It's been a while since I read Batgirl, but I thought she was lesbian and
in a committed relationship. Wasn't there going to be a wedding?

[Judoon]

Gustavo Wombat <gustav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Pet Peeve #12: The weird lack of middle aged women that actually look
> middle aged and are actual characters who appear in multiple scenes.
>

Saving Grace I think did a good job with female characters.

> Often, men are allowed to age, but women are expected to vanish and then
> return when they look elderly, and preferably sassy, grumpy or wise.
>

Agree with you there, same as the 60 year old mad with a 20 year old wife.

> Transformers 1-3 actually got this right, hard as it is to say about
> anything -- Judy looks like someone who could have a 16-22 year old kid.
> Transformers 4 leaves the equivalent role vacant by making Cade a
> widower...
>

I'm guessing he made a girlfriend in the garage we just didn't see, or was
maybe the guard dog thing. I'm not sure.

>
> Pet Peeve #13: No Scientific Advisor for the script
>
> This isn't just plot holes, this is plot holes that require being dumb. Ice
> sinks in GI Joe; they microwave water supplies in Gotham to make them boil,
> but the people don't pop like popcorn in Batman Begins; almost every
> reference to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
>
> It's hard to look past physics not working.
>

This goes for everything. Lasers that fire blasts, not beams. Indiana Jones
surviving an a-bomb in a refrigerator. Stupid is available in movies. Like
in Captain America: Winter Solider, the drug Fury used to fake his death,
didn't come close to their description, they could have easily used a
secret drug, but why bother. I love how in sit-coms the young broke friends
live in apartments that would cost like $2000 a month.

>
>
> Pet Peeve #14: Only minor characters are minorities
>
> So, so very condescending. Count the minority characters in the 2007
> Transformers movie, and then ponder if any of them are anything other than
> comic relief for the main plot.

Depends on the film. Nick Fury isn't minor to me, but I do see your point,
they are far and few. Even Disney's Lone Ranger didn't feel like using an
Indian for Tonto, but even Windtalkers hired Christian Slader as the Indian
there. I do admit I liked John Goodman as Hound. I enjoyed the hung-ho
solider stereotype, for some unexplainable reason I found it fun.

[Judoon]

Zobovor <zm...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Friday, October 3, 2014 7:47:24 AM UTC-6, Cappeca wrote:
>
>> I have an issue with people who have issues with smoking if they don't have
>> the same issues with drinking.
>
> Cappeca has opened up a can of worms without even realizing it. The
> worms cannot slither back into the can. The worms are now everywhere.
>
> Point #1: There is not, as far as I know, a movement to remove drinking
> scenes from films. This is not entirely relevant to the discussion.
>

Sure it is. Alcohol is a vice. For some reason it is publicly acceptable,
while people have no problem attacking smokers who are also a perfectly
legal vice. You don't like smoking, and find it distasteful, I have the
same feelings to drunks.

> Point #2: Unlike the public perception of smoking, which has undergone
> something of a dramatic shift, drinking is still generally considered
> socially acceptable as long as conditions are met (i.e., not drinking and
> driving, not getting drunk and beating your spouse, not underage drinking, etc.)
>

Why? I've yet to hear someone in trouble for smoking and driving, beating a
spouse etc. What are the health benefits of downing a 6 or 24 pack during
the big game?

> As an aside, it's only in the past year or two that I've actually seen
> bong use depicted in film/television (the TV series Wilfred,
> specifically, and the movie Ted). Either I've just been missing it all
> this time, or they've relaxed broadcast standards sufficiently to allow
> it. I haven't decided how I feel about it yet.
>

It happens, you can't complain TV is not realistic if you want it filtered.
Also tobacco and weed are two different things, and as far as alcohol, weed
has been found to have medical benefits. Then again booze has always been a
favorite to self medicate.

> Point #3: It does bother me but in a different way. Gustavo thinks I
> have issues about smoking? My mom smoked, but at least it didn't
> transform her into a monster. My father was an alcoholic and terrified
> the fuck out of me when I was a child. I could come home from school and
> he'd either be friendly and helpful or he'd be surly and combative, and I
> had no way of knowing which it would be on a given day until he was
> chasing me up the stairs and throwing me on the bed and saying things
> like "I didn't hurt you; I only hurt your feelings." Suffice to say, I
> don't drink. There are surely people in this world who can drink
> responsibly, but in the meantime, I hate that it even exists. It's one
> of the only mind-altering drugs that's legal. If it were up to me, I
> would refuse to sell it when I'm running a cash register and somebody
> comes through my line wanting to buy some.
>

It's also the gateway drug. Weed always gets blamed, but in most cases beer
was tried before weed. And if you want to avoid the health risks, that's
another can of worms. 200 kids a year are criticality injured in little
league football. Extreme sports kill people. Sure it's usually the ones we
don't want to reproduce, but it's not healthy. If you want to protect the
public, let's start making sure they're safe.

> There you go. Issues.
>
> Point #4: As a burgeoning fiction writer, I recognize the enormous
> appeal of allowing getting characters to get drunk. It allows them to
> relax their inhibitions and stop playing all the games that people play
> and actually reveal some deep and meaningful stuff through dialogue.
> That's a really powerful tool available to me. I don't know that I would
> ever write a character smoking, if only because it doesn't allow me any
> additional insights into a character (except perhaps that he enjoys to
> kill himself very slowly, I suppose).
>

So your drunks are fun drunks. Funny thing is I'm a designated driver for
some friends, I don't drink or smoke, so the rules don't effect me, but
very seldom do I see people all that happy during happy hour. Your drunks
don't get violent, obnoxious or simply assholes. You truly deal only in
Science Fiction or Fantasy.

> Point #5: The Perks of Being a Wallflower bothered me on so many levels.
>

I loved that film, simply because I remember living through it. It was
realistic and true to the book.

The nightly news however, offends me. How can the gatekeeper who is to
report the truth, do so with ads at the bottom of the screen?

[Judoon]

Thank you! I'm in 110% agreement with you. It makes as much sense as
homophobes who love professional wrestling. To beefy oiled down men, in
tiny speedos trying to get each other down on a mat. So macho!

The other thing I find offensive is people who use CK1, this shit reeks.
I'd rather be stuck in an elevator with an alcoholic chain smoker than
someone who hosed the self down with CK1.

[Judoon]

"Irrellius Spamticon of the Potato People." <Ob1k...@att.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 2, 2014 10:22:33 PM UTC-5, Gustavo Wombat, of the
> Seattle Wombats wrote:
>>
>

> 1998 godzilla
>>

That's because Camron became a captain in Starfleet, and wasn't in the
movie.

>
> Trying to make the characters interesting and give them depth in a
> limited 3 hour timetable is hard, so they ham it up with stock character
> archetypes that the audience will identify from previous media to the
> point that the characters aren't likable or relatable.
>

That sounds like the nightly news, the characters are always a letdown.

>
> The Bay movies keep getting aimed at an increasingly older audience where
> the toys seem to be getting more for younger audiences.
>

I'm completely baffled how someone would spend $60 on leader Prime, or $70
for the big Grimlock who doesn't even have shoulder articulation. These
toys seem more like knock-offs than Transformers. I think the Jumpstarters
had more articulation than chomp the big one Grimlock. To me, the Dinobots
in the last film were Battlezoids, they had as much characterization as
Lockdown's spaceship. The only TF4 toy I was tempted to keep was Evasion
Prime, but in the end it went with my friend. The Big Adventure/GoBots are
going to Florida for my 2 year old nephew. I got him hooked on the Rescue
Heroes stuff, so I figure he'd love these. I'm pretty sure that some of
them are more advanced than the AoE line. There is an extra on the Blu-ray
release about the designers, saying they grew up on Transformers, and love
them, but none of them have AoE toys on their desk, but they have
Generations, Prime and other series toys displayed. Must be a hard job
having Masterpiece Grimlock sitting on your desk while designing super
bite-me Grimlock.

>> That's what remakes are for. Don't just tinker around the edges -- if
>> the story as told no longer works for a modern audience, then tell it
>> again. Or tell a new story.
>

Completely agree with you on this. If you want to put your own spin on
things, make something yourself. I wouldn't want the people behind Sponge
Bob to take a stab at editing Appleseed or Starblazers to update it.

> I think the problem is that they don't know what is appropriate for a
> modern audience. I get frustrated at movies that put all their budget
> into effects and big name stars and then the story makes no sense and the
> characters spout inane drivel not relevant to the story. Stop treating
> the audience like they are morons, studies show even children can follow
> complex and interweaving stories if it is presented as a relevant theme in the movie.
>

I don't think they really care what is appropriate, as long as the box
office makes profit. If the Bay films lost money for being crappy, they
would change. As long as people see them, sum multi-able times, they will
keep producing what makes cash.

>
> I never liked smoking in movies, even as a kid. I knew it was supposed to
> be "sexy" but at the time my family members were dropping right and left
> from lung cancer, which we knew was from smoking even though big tobacco
> wouldn't admit it then.
>

Does the drinking bother you? Drinking causes liver failure, shitting
parenting, unexpected parenting and collateral damage, with the "driving
sobers me up" crowd. Tobacco is banned from TV ads, but the disgusting
anti-smoking adds exist, and beer saturates everything. Seems odd that some
vices are so widely endorsed and supported.

>> Actually, if Disney were to re-edit the Star Wars Prequels, and replace
>> the voices of a lot of the aliens to be something other than horrible
>> racial stereotypes, I would be torn.
>>
>
> What if they just replaced it with people they had on their Disney channel shows?
>

Still can't believe people like that crappy Rebels show over Clone Wars.
Disney specializes in animation, and this such dismal quality.

>> I think generally reworking movies is a mistake, but I think I am
>> willing to make an exception for fixing accidental racism -- but even
>> there, I would feel better about it if it happened quickly, rather than
>> decades after the fact.
>>
>

I'm looking forward to your remake of Roots and North and South. I
understand how things can be misinterpreted, just look at Hitler, all he
did was ask for "a glass of juice", and there was so much unnecessary
bloodshed.

> The line for Skids and mudflap that bothered me the most was just about
> them not being able to read. If they just said they couldn't read stuff
> specifically that old, instead of indicating they just plain couldn't read.

Maybe they went to public school?

[Judoon]

Zobovor <zm...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 2, 2014 3:51:01 PM UTC-6, Judoon wrote:
>
>
> You're kind of addressing three separate issues all at once. To wit:
>
> 1) I have read that in the original cut of the film, all the federal
> agents were holding ice cream cones. When Spielberg screened the movie
> for an audience, including President Ronald Reagan, they felt the agents
> were not threatening enough so the scene was altered and the ice cream
> cones were replaced with guns. So, actually, taking the guns out makes
> the new version of E.T. *closer* to the original edition.
>

See, you got me there, I had no knowledge of the previous script. I guess
it's how in the original Star Wars cut Darth Vader just used a red plunger
and poked people with it, and it just didn't seem to make him as dangerous
as the light saber. Although it is odd that the brother/sister kiss was
added after Lucas decided they were related, because he felt that it
happened in the Mississippi part of space.

> 2) Nobody's expecting the live-action movies to be one hundred percent
> identical to the G1 cartoon. That's really kind of a straw man statement
> because you're arguing against something that people never said. The
> thing about adaptations, though, is you have to stay somewhat true to the
> source material. The more you diverge from it, the less faithful an
> adaptation it becomes. There are some films that are so wildly different
> than what they're allegedly based on that they're basically updates in
> name only (the Lost in Space movie from 1999 comes to mind).
>

The thing is, if the Transformers movies were closer to the source, they
would not make $100 Billion. Most people like explosions, and nothing they
have to think too much about, that way they can do important things during
the movie like texting or talking to their friends. If Hasbro truly cared
about their "top property" they would have controlled some of the film
content, they let Bay do what he did, and cashed the big fat check. The
made shit toys to support what he did. Yet Bay is to blame.

You are completely correct, Lost in Space was shit, that's why I don't own
the movie, but I do own the series. AEC was shit, I don't own it either.
Since I'm not looking at it, I don't give a shit that someone is, and I'm
glad they love it. Look at some of the Batman films from the 90's Val and
George made Adam West look like a genus. I happen to enjoy JJ Abrams reboot
of Star Trek, and there is a lot of hatred out there for it, and it
completely erased all of Star Trek except Enterprise (which was my
favorite.) I have just hit the point in life that I can't get that upset
about fiction. It just isn't that important in the long run. I don't like
something in one series, I can watch Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.S., or Under The
Dome, or any of the hundreds of series available. I can even read a book
instead, then be completely disappointed in the movie they make, that
completely fucks up the source material. Even the TMNT. I hated that they
made a children's series from the underground comic. How many confirmed
kills did they have in the cartoon? In the Transformers cartoon, which I
loved in the day, it drove me nuts that there was no collateral damage.
Humans never got killed. Same in GI Joe, how do people not die during war.
That's why I was always a Starblazers fan first, seemed more realistic at
the time.

> 3) In principle, I can agree that editing older movies is generally
> unfavorable. At the same time, though, we're living in a different era
> than when many of those films were made, and I can sympathize with the
> desire to make them more palatable for a modern audience.
>

Then remake it, changing the past is sad. I had a history of war class at
college, and one of the students stood up and had a fit that the Holocaust
never occurred. The Jews made it up for attention. So should we change Boy
in the Striped Pajamas so instead of killing the kid, they took him for ice
cream? Films are history, I don't need someone changing them to make things
more palatable to the generation who think Tweets are the best way to
communicate, or a magazine is the same as a book. God forbid someone have
to think or learn from a movie, just let them be entertained. How is
changing a movie like The Usual Suspects, or Casablanca any different to
what was done with new Transformers moves? At least they don't damage what
existed. They don't take away what you like.

> Specifically, smoking scenes in films kind of bother me now. I don't
> want my kids seeing this portrayed as a normal everyday event. That's
> how it was in the 1980's, but times have changed. If I'm watching a
> movie or a show and a character starts smoking, I like them less. I
> think it's kind of disgusting. For me, it's roughly the equivalent of,
> say, starting to pick their nose. It's just something I don't want to
> see. I get that smoking was a cultural staple for a really long time,
> and you could argue that there are some films that would be ruined by its
> complete removal. I hate when it pops up in otherwise kid-friendly
> productions, though (like Short Circuit 2, for example).
>

But booze is fine. Americans have become pricks, smoking is bad, we must
judge those people, ridicule them. But drink up, booze is perfectly
acceptable, and if you have enough cash you can drink up, drive home and
kill someone on the way, and buy your way out of jail. When was the last
time you heard of someone smoking a pack, then causing a car accident
because of it. In Bogart films, the cigarette represented the sex, they
used to show what they couldn't. Hitchcock had kissing seems that lasted
twenty times longer than allowed by the code, by simply adding dialogue in
between. I don't need anyone changing this, because too much talking
confused them. There are a ton of things that are uncomfortable in movies,
A Clockwork Orange is painful to watch at times, but I don't want one
second of that film updated, simplified or sanitized for the audience. If
you don't like what you see, stop watching. Same as the groups of moms that
boycott TV shows, what happened to turning the channel. If you are worried
about what your kids are exposed to, and you can't filter it in your own
home, how do you control school, the world. I'm amazed that there are
parents who monitor the home PC, but their kids run around on iPhones and
have M rated video games. How sex is taboo but Wallmart sells short shorts
(my wife and I call them Cooter Coolers) for 9 year olds. Then violence is
good, that's the American way. Sports, football is combat with men in
tights grabbing each other's asses. NASCAR is the most environmentally
damaging and wasteful thing ever, but they are great entertainment. People
only want what they want, and everything is expected to cater to them.
America has become the new Roman Empire, and hopefully people know what
happened there. We are already are rated lower than Cuba in Health Care,
yet proud as can be. Even newspapers are written on a sixth grade level or
lower, because the average person can't comprehend beyond that, but give
them the Bible, and they can interpret the one true word like nobody's
business.

>>> The fact that they did some CGI to E.T. himself really helps to make the
>>> character more expressive. It sells him as a living thing in a way that
>>> the original puppet didn't quite manage.
>>
>> Like how a race of alien robots might retaliate against a world that they
>> helped to protect, while being lied to, hunted down and killed by them.
>> Seems they just might fight back.
>
> Guh? Are you responding to my quoted text? You're raising a valid
> point, but it seems like a strange response to what I said. It's pretty
> much a non sequitur.
>

You're right, I have no idea where I was working from there. If I haven't
mentioned it here, I'm bi-polar (real medical diagnosis, not webMD), and
occasionally I continue a rant from a different source. 1) never take
offense to anything I post, it really sit mental to contain personal
malice. 2) when I refer to 'people' it is in the group sense, I agree with
K that a person can be smart, but people are stupid. 3) the fans that have
killed most fandoms for me, are the ones who don't think that things they
don't like, should not be allowed. Ones who feel that an adult who makes
death threats to people over entertainment material because they are hiding
behind a monitor an pseudonym. Small minds with smaller agendas.

> Well, okay. Yes, the Autobots in the movies had a valid reason to be
> upset. As you said, "the humans" (collectively) lied to them and
> betrayed them. Let's flip it around and look at it from the other side
> of things. As far as the humans are concerned, "the robots"
> (collectively) murdered countless hundreds or thousands and demolished major cities.
>

I agree, but it still feels like, Japan bombed Perl Harbor, so we need to
kill ALL soldiers everywhere. With how gaudy Optimus is now, they should
have at least recognized him as a good guy. I know a lot of people dislike
Prime, but how I look at it, Prime is a solider and soldiers kill. Not
nice, but fact. Never understood, if I killed my father (who needs to die),
it's murder. If I go overseas an do it for my country, I'm a hero. Thou
shall not kill, unless sanctioned by thee government.

> Obviously, not every human lied to the Autobots and not every robot was
> responsible for trashing Chicago. That's the problem when you lump
> everybody together like that. For the Autobots to just up and dismiss
> the humans, collectively, is as blind as foolish as humans are usually
> accused of being in Transformers stories.
>

True, but if the humans are accepted as doing it, shouldn't the robots have
the same privilege. I know the Transformers war was brought to Earth, but
how often does the good old US of A decide to play police for the world,
wether they want us there or not.


Again, just my opinion, very little I think is fact for anyone else.

[Zobovor]

On Sunday, October 5, 2014 6:45:38 PM UTC-6, Judoon wrote:

> I'm not sure if she counts as a main character, but Zoë from Firefly was
> one of the strongest characters in the series.

I'd say she's my favorite character on the show. She wasn't *the* lead character, though. That role was served (of course) by a white male.

The Walking Dead is another good example. They've always been very careful to keep at least one African-American in a prominent role (and it seems like whenever they kill one off, they quickly bring in a new one like clockwork, just to maintain the status quo). Michonne has become one of the best new characters in the series, and again she's probably my favorite (I've got a thing for dark-skinned badass females, apparently). They'd never kill off Rick Grimes and give her the starring role, though. It's an almost universal constant that the lead role goes to a white male.

> I think that maybe this won't be an issue if we were all just Americans, but
> people still see colors in people.

Funny that it's always skin color, too. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone who loves green-eyed people but hates blue-eyed people, for example, or reserves a special kind of hatred in their heart for redheads.

I think we all just need to intermingle to the point where there are no racial differences. The entire population can just be a medium-brown color.

Of course, then we'll find some other reason to hate each other. (Discrimination based on what generation of smartphone you use, probably.)


Zob

[Zobovor]

On Sunday, October 5, 2014 6:45:39 PM UTC-6, Judoon wrote:

> It's been a while since I read Batgirl, but I thought she was lesbian and
> in a committed relationship. Wasn't there going to be a wedding?

Apparently DC Comics got cold feet and cancelled the wedding at the last minute. I can't imagine how this decision could possibly benefit them.


Zob

[Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats]

On Sunday, October 5, 2014 5:45:39 PM UTC-7, Judoon wrote:

> Gustavo Wombat <gustav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > If you make this a religious objection, you might be able to get away with
> > it. Much like the pharmacists who will not fulfill prescriptions for the
> > morning after pill.
>
> I just see this as not wanting to do their job. If your job is filling
> prescriptions, and you don't like it, flip burgers at McDonalds, I'm sure
> they can be replaced with someone who doesn't take orders from an imaginary
> friend. Did you notice if you talk To God, your religious - if God talks to
> you, your psychotic.

Honestly, I am a little torn on the pharmacists.

If you were to run a pharmacy, you have to choose what drugs it makes sense to stock, and which it doesn't (after my pulmonary embolism, I discovered that my local pharmacy didn't stock heparin -- there isn't enough call for it, it is expensive and it expires). So, if you choose not to stock birth control, etc., I can see that being reasonable.

However, pharmacies that do stock drugs should be able to hire people who will fill any and all prescriptions, and fire those who refuse. Right now, pharmacies would run the risk of lawsuits for religious discrimination, because explicit exceptions are being carved out of discrimination laws at a state level. (Compare this to hiring someone in a wheelchair -- if the job requires lifting a 25lb weight to a height of five feet from the floor, you don't have to hire or keep someone who cannot, with reasonable accommodation, do so)

But, at the same time, as a social policy issue, we want to ensure that drugs are available, and that healthcare decisions are being made by doctors and their patients and are not being restricted by the local pharmacy chain. So, some regulation might make sense for a minimum set of stocked items, which could include birth control. Medicare could be used as a club here, by only covering prescriptions that are filled at fully stocked pharmacies.

But, it's complicated balancing people's rights against each other.

> > On the subject of the world going to hell in a hand basket because of loose
> > morals, a preview of the next issue of "Batgirl" (there's a new creative
> > team, and they are trying to fix the terrible decisions of the last
> > creative team, so this really is a reintroduction) depicts her having
> > gotten so drunk binge drinking that in the morning she does not recognize
> > the guy she was making out with, and who her roommate had to separate her
> > from (presumably before she slept with him in a state where she could not
> > meaningfully consent, as a flashback showed her having taken off his
> > shirt).
>
> It's been a while since I read Batgirl, but I thought she was lesbian and
> in a committed relationship. Wasn't there going to be a wedding?

That was Batwoman, who is someone else entirely. And the wedding was called off by the editors, causing the writer and artist to quit.

Batwoman is a woman, Kathy Kane, who was inspired by Batman, and dresses as a bat, but doesn't really work with Batman.

Batgirl is traditionally Barbara Gordon (there have been several others), she is younger (20ish), and has worked directly with Batman.

It's a little confusing that there are multiple Bat-females running around with similar names and costumes.

Batlady, Batbabe, Batchick and Batbroad don't exist, but would make things more complicated if they did.

[Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats]

They claimed that it wasn't because it was a same sex wedding, but because they hate all marriage. This is why Superman and Lois Lane are no longer married, Green Arrow and Black Canary, Hawk and Dove, etc.

I really have no idea why they think that is better.

And Superman's marriage to Lois Lane made for a much better dynamic than the Clark-loves-Lois, Lois-loves-Superman, Superman-is-really-Clark triangle. Right now, it is Superman and Wonder Woman being all romanticy, which is at least not the "I am lying to you" love triangle.

[Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats]

On Sunday, October 5, 2014 6:29:43 PM UTC-7, Zobovor wrote:
> On Sunday, October 5, 2014 6:45:38 PM UTC-6, Judoon wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure if she counts as a main character, but Zoë from Firefly was
> > one of the strongest characters in the series.
>
> I'd say she's my favorite character on the show. She wasn't *the* lead character, though. That role was served (of course) by a white male.

I always liked Shepard Book. Firefly had a lot of good female and minority characters -- Joss Whedon shows tend to have a good balance gender-wise, if not racially -- but that is one of the things that makes it different.

And Zoe, Kaylee and Inara were all major characters, even if none of them were the lead.

So, that's a show that did it mostly right.

> The Walking Dead is another good example. They've always been very careful to keep at least one African-American in a prominent role (and it seems like whenever they kill one off, they quickly bring in a new one like clockwork, just to maintain the status quo). Michonne has become one of the best new characters in the series, and again she's probably my favorite (I've got a thing for dark-skinned badass females, apparently). They'd never kill off Rick Grimes and give her the starring role, though. It's an almost universal constant that the lead role goes to a white male.

Walking Dead seems way more tokeny than Firefly. It might be the fact that there is always exactly one African-American.

> > I think that maybe this won't be an issue if we were all just Americans, but
>
> > people still see colors in people.
>
>
>
> Funny that it's always skin color, too. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone who loves green-eyed people but hates blue-eyed people, for example, or reserves a special kind of hatred in their heart for redheads.

The Irish were absolutely hated pre-WW2. (Not that they did anything to redeem themselves in WW2, that's just when we sent so many men overseas that there was full employment and no one was advertising jobs with "No Irish Need Apply")

> I think we all just need to intermingle to the point where there are no racial differences. The entire population can just be a medium-brown color.

I think that would be a little sad. I like variety.

[Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats]

On Sunday, October 5, 2014 5:45:42 PM UTC-7, Judoon wrote:

> Still can't believe people like that crappy Rebels show over Clone Wars.
> Disney specializes in animation, and this such dismal quality.

I have watched part of the first episode, and I really like how the heroes are not being fooled into fighting on the side of evil.

Call me sentimental that way, but it really undercuts the entire Clone Wars era for me.

Ezra's nose bothers me, but I decided he just isn't fully human.

> >> I think generally reworking movies is a mistake, but I think I am
> >> willing to make an exception for fixing accidental racism -- but even
> >> there, I would feel better about it if it happened quickly, rather than
> >> decades after the fact.
>
> I'm looking forward to your remake of Roots and North and South. I
> understand how things can be misinterpreted, just look at Hitler, all he
> did was ask for "a glass of juice", and there was so much unnecessary
> bloodshed.

Accidental racism. "Roots", "North and South" and "Birth of a Nation" have intentional racism. The first two even depict it as a bad thing...

But, I don't think George Lucas meant for Jar Jar to be a stereotype of the foolish Jamaican, or the Michael Bay meant for Mudflap and Skids to be quite so offensive. In both cases, it was people in a position of privilege just completely screwing up and somehow getting it past a whole bunch of other people.

A sheepish apology and a new edition redubbing and rewriting those characters lines might have been appropriate.

> > The line for Skids and mudflap that bothered me the most was just about
> > them not being able to read. If they just said they couldn't read stuff
> > specifically that old, instead of indicating they just plain couldn't read.

It's funny because blacks graduate from high school at a lower rate than whites, and are often in poor areas with underfunded schools...

[Zobovor]

On Sunday, October 5, 2014 6:45:42 PM UTC-6, Judoon wrote:

> The thing is, if the Transformers movies were closer to the source, they
> would not make $100 Billion. Most people like explosions, and nothing they
> have to think too much about

Well, let's get real. The original Transformers cartoon only very infrequently made you think. I doubt most episodes would completely go over the heads of Michael Bay's target audience.

> I have just hit the point in life that I can't get that upset about fiction.
> It just isn't that important in the long run.

True story. People who get that angry about their entertainment need to step back and realize that if that's the most upsetting thing they have to worry about, they're doing pretty well for themselves.

> Even the TMNT. I hated that they made a children's series from the
> underground comic. How many confirmed kills did they have in the cartoon?

Only one that I'm sure of. At the beginning of "Leatherhead: Terror of the Swamps," there's a guy in a boat hunting for this legendary giant alligator. The gator shows up, chomps the boat in half, but then he's exposed to mutagen and turns into Leatherhead. Later on, we see Leatherhead wearing all of the guy's clothing. Same exact pants, vest, and hat. One explanation is that the guy stripped naked. A much more logical explanation is that Leatherhead ate him and stole his clothes.

Okay, not so much a confirmed kill as a strongly-implied kill. But still.

> In the Transformers cartoon, which I loved in the day, it drove me nuts that
> there was no collateral damage.

I choose to believe that the collateral damage is part of that fictional world, but most of it was never shown on-screen. ("The Ultimate Doom" was pretty bad, though. The damage was so bad that they were still working on repairing the damage even after the three-part episode was over.)

> Then remake it, changing the past is sad. I had a history of war class at
> college, and one of the students stood up and had a fit that the Holocaust
> never occurred.

I don't comprehend Holocaust denial. I can understand questioning ancient mythical events of which there's no surviving physical proof (like, say, Noah building the Ark) but there are people still alive from that time period who can confirm that the Holocaust happened. So, like, are they all just suffering from one big mass hallucination?


Zob

[Zobovor]

On Sunday, October 5, 2014 8:19:55 PM UTC-6, Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats wrote:

> But, I don't think George Lucas meant for Jar Jar to be a stereotype of the
> foolish Jamaican, or the Michael Bay meant for Mudflap and Skids to be quite
> so offensive. In both cases, it was people in a position of privilege just
> completely screwing up and somehow getting it past a whole bunch of other
> people.

One of the problems with Jar Jar Binks is that he kind of violated the established language rules for Star Wars. Either characters spoke English (all the main characters) or they didn't (R2-D2, Chewbacca, Jabba the Hutt, the Ewoks). Jar Jar was speaking this bizarre pidgin English that just makes him sound like he's too dumb to correctly master the language. (Yoda had some weird syntax thing goin' on, but the words were clearly English. Words like "meesa" and "bombad," what the hell language do those come from?)

Ahmed Best is a black actor, though, so obviously when he was cast for Jar Jar, he brought some of himself to the role. Every actor does. So, some of that comes through in Jar Jar's voice. The actor has said in interviews that he was given a great degree of freedom in developing Jar Jar's vocal mannerisms and movements (through motion-capture CGI). If we begin with the premise that Ahmed Best did not start out with the intent to create a racially offensive character, then isn't it just possible that Jar Jar is a goofy, hapless character who was portrayed by a black actor? Does it automatically follow that the existence of Jar Jar means that all blacks are goofy and hapless?

Skids and Mudflap are very closely related to Jar Jar. The way they're portrayed in the Revenge of the Fallen novelization (which was based on the film' script) makes them out to be stupid and immature, but they don't come across as racial stereotypes like they do in the movie. Reno Wilson said in an interview that as a black actor, he wasn't offended by his own portrayal of Mudflap. As for Tom Kenny playing Skids, well, he was basically just doing a robot version of SpongeBob Squarepants. (I can't believe that Google just auto-corrected "Spongebob" to "SpongeBob." Because THAT'S an important word for Google to know.)

I think part of the problem is that we've become so sensitive to perceived racial slights that potentially *anything* can be interpreted as offensive. When I was developing my syndicated comic book (no, not published yet; my daughter is two years old and needs me more than my comics characters do) I was trying to develop some racially diverse characters (I hate that white is always the "default" setting) but I was constantly running into problems. It's a fictional universe filled with talking cows, walking skeletons, etc. and there are very few legitimate human characters. I couldn't make the clown character black, because then people would think I'm saying all black people are clowns. I couldn't make the obnoxious toddler black, because there's the message that all black kids are little brats.

In the end, the only logical remaining choice was the news reporter, whose function in the strip is to provide fodder for the main characters to react to and make fun of. She functions as a "straight man" and is one of the only characters who isn't a complete buffoon. It bothers me that this became such a long and involved process, though. I hardly give a second thought to what color a character's hair or eyes are going to be, but when it comes time to pick a skin color I have to cover all my bases and make sure I don't inadvertently upset people.

Somebody else mentioned the series Friends. Can you imagine if one of the core characters had actually been African-American? Like, say, Joey? "Oh, so all black people are promiscuous, is that what this show is saying?!" Or Phoebe? "Oh, I get it, so the producers think that all black people are idiots!" I don't think there is a single role on that show that would have been safe to cast as a minority.

Jim Henson had the right idea. All people should be purple and green and blue.

> A sheepish apology and a new edition redubbing and rewriting those characters
> lines might have been appropriate.

No, George Lucas was too busy ruining Boba Fett and dubbing over all of HIS dialogue to worry about fixing Jar Jar!


Zob

[No One In Particular]

People believe what they want to believe. Usually what lets them
justify doing the things that they really want to do anyway.

Brian

[No One In Particular]

On 10/5/2014 10:30 AM, Irrellius Spamticon of the Potato People. wrote:

>
> Pharmacists get away with much much more. A pharmacist refused to fill my ex's prescription

for anti-psychotics because his religion said mental illness wasn't a
real thing, and that

the best medicine is faith. He became a pharmacist for the express
purpose of refusing to give

people medications his faith said were evil.
>

Time to get a new pharmacist, and spend your money elsewhere. If enough
people do that, that pharmacist will find himself in need of a new employer.

Brian

[No One In Particular]

On 10/5/2014 7:45 PM, Judoon wrote:
> "Irrellius Spamticon of the Potato People." <Ob1k...@att.net> wrote:

>
> On one hand, I find this quite offensive, bot on the other hand I can
> understand some of this. I know that their were many computer jobs I turned
> down (usually building a system for, or training) on the grounds I was
> dealing with someone wha too stupid to own a computer. Then again I worked
> for myself at the time, and didn't need the work. Also I got prescriptions
> only once at Walmart, and they tried to give me these shit Walmart brand
> insulin needles, telling me they were cheaper, but charging my insurance
> twice as much as Rite Aid for name brand.
>
>

>

> Thaddeus Cultt
>


Pharmacies exist to sell drugs and make money. If the particular
pharmacist who is exercising his religious freedom at the expense of
their bottom line keeps going like that, they will either fire him, or
hire a second pharmacist who does not have those particular moral
qualms to work alongside the other fellow.

Working in the corporate world, however, I have trouble seeing any
company going to the expense of hiring a two employees to do a job one
should be able to accomplish.

Brian

[gustavowombat]

Zobovor <zm...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, October 5, 2014 8:19:55 PM UTC-6, Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats wrote:
>
>> But, I don't think George Lucas meant for Jar Jar to be a stereotype of the
>> foolish Jamaican, or the Michael Bay meant for Mudflap and Skids to be quite
>> so offensive. In both cases, it was people in a position of privilege just
>> completely screwing up and somehow getting it past a whole bunch of other
>> people.
>
> One of the problems with Jar Jar Binks is that he kind of violated the
> established language rules for Star Wars. Either characters spoke
> English (all the main characters) or they didn't (R2-D2, Chewbacca, Jabba
> the Hutt, the Ewoks). Jar Jar was speaking this bizarre pidgin English
> that just makes him sound like he's too dumb to correctly master the
> language. (Yoda had some weird syntax thing goin' on, but the words were
> clearly English. Words like "meesa" and "bombad," what the hell language
> do those come from?)

Just think for a moment about Jar Jar saying "Meesa Horny!"

No, not the expected stereotype, but now you will have trouble getting that
out of your head. You're welcome.

I think the real problem with the character is that everyone involved got
too close to it, and lost objectivity. It's one thing not to notice he is a
racial characature, but to not even notice he is annoying as hell?

On the other hand, you have Nute Gunray's East Asian accent, and the little
flying Jew with the nose. So, maybe I want to be more forgiving than I
should be. I suspect that the answer might be that they were trying to make
accents that seemed believable, and we're blending things and we got this.

Jar Jar is deeply weird. He's like a Rorschach blot of stereotypes -- you
will find something.

Mudflap and Skids sort of seem the same way.

> I think part of the problem is that we've become so sensitive to
> perceived racial slights that potentially *anything* can be interpreted
> as offensive. When I was developing my syndicated comic book (no, not
> published yet; my daughter is two years old and needs me more than my
> comics characters do) I was trying to develop some racially diverse
> characters (I hate that white is always the "default" setting) but I was
> constantly running into problems. It's a fictional universe filled with
> talking cows, walking skeletons, etc. and there are very few legitimate
> human characters. I couldn't make the clown character black, because
> then people would think I'm saying all black people are clowns. I
> couldn't make the obnoxious toddler black, because there's the message
> that all black kids are little brats.

Just make sure the generic Asian is good at math and Karate. Be daring.
Usually they are only good at one.

> Somebody else mentioned the series Friends. Can you imagine if one of
> the core characters had actually been African-American? Like, say, Joey?
> "Oh, so all black people are promiscuous, is that what this show is
> saying?!" Or Phoebe? "Oh, I get it, so the producers think that all
> black people are idiots!" I don't think there is a single role on that
> show that would have been safe to cast as a minority.

If people of color were cast as more than just color, this wouldn't be a
problem.

Was there ever an episode where they noticed they only knew white people?
Because that would have been great.

[gustavowombat]

It's the Holocaust Minimizers that really get my goat. "Sure, Hitler killed
some Jews, but the Jews have been lying about the number to build support
and sympathy as they control the world from Israel, and force the
Palestinians to live under an apartheid system. Why would they do this?
Because they are horrible people. Makes you wonder if Hitler had the right
idea..."

I once worked at a company where we maintained and moderated discussion
boards, and got a whole bunch of Holocaust Minimizers on them. So much more
insidious than the deniers.

[Zobovor]

On Sunday, October 5, 2014 10:35:15 PM UTC-6, nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:

> I think the real problem with the character is that everyone involved got
> too close to it, and lost objectivity. It's one thing not to notice he is a
> racial characature, but to not even notice he is annoying as hell?

I imagine after numerous multiple takes of the same scenes, over and over, everybody making the movie just became immune to it. (Jar Jar scenes got even more retakes than normal scenes, because they did one version with Ahmed Best in a Jar Jar costume and then a second take without the actor present so they could comp in the CGI character.)

> On the other hand, you have Nute Gunray's East Asian accent, and the little
> flying Jew with the nose. So, maybe I want to be more forgiving than I
> should be. I suspect that the answer might be that they were trying to make
> accents that seemed believable, and we're blending things and we got this.

I think it must be very difficult to create a brand new accent. I've tried and for some reason it always ends up too similar to something else I've heard before.

I found this to be really interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybcvlxivscw

> Was there ever an episode where they noticed they only knew white people?
> Because that would have been great.

I used to live in the Washington, D.C. area, where I would estimate the black population might be between 40-50%. Then I moved to Utah, where it might be closer to 1% or 2%. You can sure tell the demographics are different. Black baby dolls, for example, never sell in my toy department. I feel so bad when they go on clearance because nobody loves them. (And don't get me started on Tiana from Princess and the Frog. There are two Disney Princess baby doll assortments. SnowWhiteSleepingBeautyArielCinderella... and then there's Tiana. All by herself.)


Zob

[Judoon]

Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats. <gustav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Zobovor <zm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, October 5, 2014 6:45:42 PM UTC-6, Judoon wrote:
>>
>>> Then remake it, changing the past is sad. I had a history of war class at
>>> college, and one of the students stood up and had a fit that the Holocaust
>>> never occurred.
>>
>> I don't comprehend Holocaust denial. I can understand questioning
>> ancient mythical events of which there's no surviving physical proof
>> (like, say, Noah building the Ark) but there are people still alive from
>> that time period who can confirm that the Holocaust happened. So, like,
>> are they all just suffering from one big mass hallucination?
>>
>
> It's the Holocaust Minimizers that really get my goat. "Sure, Hitler killed
> some Jews, but the Jews have been lying about the number to build support
> and sympathy as they control the world from Israel, and force the
> Palestinians to live under an apartheid system. Why would they do this?
> Because they are horrible people. Makes you wonder if Hitler had the right
> idea..."
>

I've often thought this, he just picked the wrong people. Maybe the kids
who don't understand that underwear is called that because it goes under
the pants and not above, or ones that don't understand the function of a
brim on a hat is to keep the sun out of the eyes, therefore it points to
the front. If you wear it backwards, you should have it confiscated and be
given a beanie.

> I once worked at a company where we maintained and moderated discussion
> boards, and got a whole bunch of Holocaust Minimizers on them. So much more
> insidious than the deniers.

We need to create a Holocaust sleep-away camp for them. Let them see what
it was like.

[Judoon]

But he knows God will provide for and protect him.

[Judoon]

No One In Particular <brianc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Since when do most people feel they need to justify what they do. I think a
lot of the complaining and trashing others, and threats is because they sit
behind a screen at the safety of their keyboard. They feel empowered
because there are no ramifications to their actions. They are safe to come
off as important and entitled because people can't see how small and
helpless they are.

[Judoon]

Zobovor <zm...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, October 5, 2014 6:45:42 PM UTC-6, Judoon wrote:
>
>> The thing is, if the Transformers movies were closer to the source, they
>> would not make $100 Billion. Most people like explosions, and nothing they
>> have to think too much about
>
> Well, let's get real. The original Transformers cartoon only very
> infrequently made you think. I doubt most episodes would completely go
> over the heads of Michael Bay's target audience.
>

Agreed, but there's still the beer drinkin' pickup crowd that goes to these
films, than all animation is just cartoons to them. They need their
bathroom humor, four letter words and young girls in inappropriately short
shorts to feel they can relate to the characters.

>> I have just hit the point in life that I can't get that upset about fiction.
>> It just isn't that important in the long run.
>
> True story. People who get that angry about their entertainment need to
> step back and realize that if that's the most upsetting thing they have
> to worry about, they're doing pretty well for themselves.
>

Completely agreed.

>> Even the TMNT. I hated that they made a children's series from the
>> underground comic. How many confirmed kills did they have in the cartoon?
>
> Only one that I'm sure of. At the beginning of "Leatherhead: Terror of
> the Swamps," there's a guy in a boat hunting for this legendary giant
> alligator. The gator shows up, chomps the boat in half, but then he's
> exposed to mutagen and turns into Leatherhead. Later on, we see
> Leatherhead wearing all of the guy's clothing. Same exact pants, vest,
> and hat. One explanation is that the guy stripped naked. A much more
> logical explanation is that Leatherhead ate him and stole his clothes.
>
> Okay, not so much a confirmed kill as a strongly-implied kill. But still.
>

I think it's the fact some people feel so protective of their first
exposure of a series is the correct one. There are people who started with
AEC, and that is Transformers to them. 21 Jump Street was a show I watched.
Not a favorite, but still a regular. The movies are nothing like the show,
and I couldn't sit through them, but they seemed quite popular, yet very
far removed. Things change, I just don't understand why someone who loves
G1 gets pissed at someone who loves Bays movies. Personally I found the
movie Ted completely unfunny, yet people raved about how I had to see it.

>> In the Transformers cartoon, which I loved in the day, it drove me nuts that
>> there was no collateral damage.
>
> I choose to believe that the collateral damage is part of that fictional
> world, but most of it was never shown on-screen. ("The Ultimate Doom"
> was pretty bad, though. The damage was so bad that they were still
> working on repairing the damage even after the three-part episode was over.)
>

In GI Joe I remember they showed a lot of people parachuting out of planes.
It's been so long though I don't remember if it was the norm, or just
something that happened and stuck in my mind. It's like never forgetting
that the best way to tell the real Optimus from the fake was a race. Stupid
throwaway things that I didn't throwaway.

>> Then remake it, changing the past is sad. I had a history of war class at
>> college, and one of the students stood up and had a fit that the Holocaust
>> never occurred.
>
> I don't comprehend Holocaust denial. I can understand questioning
> ancient mythical events of which there's no surviving physical proof
> (like, say, Noah building the Ark) but there are people still alive from
> that time period who can confirm that the Holocaust happened. So, like,
> are they all just suffering from one big mass hallucination?
>
>

I couldn't agree more. The scene this guy made in class should have been
funny in a twisted way, but it was so insane the class was silent.

[Judoon]

"Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats" <Gustav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, October 5, 2014 5:45:42 PM UTC-7, Judoon wrote:
>
>> Still can't believe people like that crappy Rebels show over Clone Wars.
>> Disney specializes in animation, and this such dismal quality.
>
> I have watched part of the first episode, and I really like how the
> heroes are not being fooled into fighting on the side of evil.
>
> Call me sentimental that way, but it really undercuts the entire Clone Wars era for me.
>
> Ezra's nose bothers me, but I decided he just isn't fully human.
>

I might have liked it more, but I just couldn't get into the animation.

>
> Accidental racism. "Roots", "North and South" and "Birth of a Nation"
> have intentional racism. The first two even depict it as a bad thing...
>

I knew what was meant, just thought the PC versions of those shows could be
quite amusing.

> But, I don't think George Lucas meant for Jar Jar to be a stereotype of
> the foolish Jamaican, or the Michael Bay meant for Mudflap and Skids to
> be quite so offensive. In both cases, it was people in a position of
> privilege just completely screwing up and somehow getting it past a whole
> bunch of other people.
>

I can agree with that, I'm sure more people than care to admit that things
they find funny could be offensive to others. Humor is subjective.

> A sheepish apology and a new edition redubbing and rewriting those
> characters lines might have been appropriate.
>

>

> It's funny because blacks graduate from high school at a lower rate than
> whites, and are often in poor areas with underfunded schools...

The thing around where I live, my African-American friends are fellow
students, like education, not stereotypical. However it's the little white
boys driving around in $500 cars with $2000 stereos playing really loud rap
music. Is there really that many girls that find that too attractive to
pass-up?

[Judoon]

"Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats" <Gustav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, October 5, 2014 6:29:43 PM UTC-7, Zobovor wrote:
>> On Sunday, October 5, 2014 6:45:38 PM UTC-6, Judoon wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure if she counts as a main character, but Zoë from Firefly was
>>> one of the strongest characters in the series.
>>
>> I'd say she's my favorite character on the show. She wasn't *the* lead
>> character, though. That role was served (of course) by a white male.
>

I know Mal was in charge, but I can't see that show missing anyone and
still be whole. Also I'd have to go with the Serenity being the lead
character, she definitely didn't follow Mal's orders all the time.

> I always liked Shepard Book. Firefly had a lot of good female and
> minority characters -- Joss Whedon shows tend to have a good balance
> gender-wise, if not racially -- but that is one of the things that makes it different.
>

Shepard Book (all that hair) was great, Ron Glass is a favorite actor of
mine.

> And Zoe, Kaylee and Inara were all major characters, even if none of them were the lead.
>

I can see your point, but to me each character is part of a whole, I can't
imagine one without the other. That's why Serenity hit me so hard.

> So, that's a show that did it mostly right.
>

I agree.

>> The Walking Dead is another good example. They've always been very
>> careful to keep at least one African-American in a prominent role (and
>> it seems like whenever they kill one off, they quickly bring in a new
>> one like clockwork, just to maintain the status quo). Michonne has
>> become one of the best new characters in the series, and again she's
>> probably my favorite (I've got a thing for dark-skinned badass females,
>> apparently). They'd never kill off Rick Grimes and give her the
>> starring role, though. It's an almost universal constant that the lead
>> role goes to a white male.
>
> Walking Dead seems way more tokeny than Firefly. It might be the fact
> that there is always exactly one African-American.
>

I really don't see it as tokenism in Walking Dead, I really don't see the
characters as black white or Asian - just the alive and dead.

>>> I think that maybe this won't be an issue if we were all just Americans, but
>>
>>> people still see colors in people.
>>
>>
>>
>> Funny that it's always skin color, too. I don't think I've ever heard
>> of anyone who loves green-eyed people but hates blue-eyed people, for
>> example, or reserves a special kind of hatred in their heart for redheads.
>

Well, there was that Hitler guy, but...

> The Irish were absolutely hated pre-WW2. (Not that they did anything to
> redeem themselves in WW2, that's just when we sent so many men overseas
> that there was full employment and no one was advertising jobs with "No Irish Need Apply")
>

Yeah, I remember my history, and I hate that it repeats itself.

>> I think we all just need to intermingle to the point where there are no
>> racial differences. The entire population can just be a medium-brown color.
>

Works for me.

> I think that would be a little sad. I like variety.

Guess too many people think like Fox News - Santa is white, get over it...
Just like Jesus is a white man

[Judoon]

"Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats" <Gustav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, October 5, 2014 6:39:56 PM UTC-7, Zobovor wrote:
>> On Sunday, October 5, 2014 6:45:39 PM UTC-6, Judoon wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> It's been a while since I read Batgirl, but I thought she was lesbian and
>>> in a committed relationship. Wasn't there going to be a wedding?
>>
>>
>>
>> Apparently DC Comics got cold feet and cancelled the wedding at the last
>> minute. I can't imagine how this decision could possibly benefit them.
>
> They claimed that it wasn't because it was a same sex wedding, but
> because they hate all marriage. This is why Superman and Lois Lane are no
> longer married, Green Arrow and Black Canary, Hawk and Dove, etc.
>

Wow, I remember how big of event they made of Green Arrow and Black Canary.
I think I still have the special issues of this in my comic boxes.

> I really have no idea why they think that is better.
>
> And Superman's marriage to Lois Lane made for a much better dynamic than
> the Clark-loves-Lois, Lois-loves-Superman, Superman-is-really-Clark
> triangle. Right now, it is Superman and Wonder Woman being all romanticy,
> which is at least not the "I am lying to you" love triangle.

I'm kinda glad I stopped following them.

[Judoon]

"Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats" <Gustav...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, October 5, 2014 5:45:39 PM UTC-7, Judoon wrote:
>
> Honestly, I am a little torn on the pharmacists.
>
> If you were to run a pharmacy, you have to choose what drugs it makes
> sense to stock, and which it doesn't (after my pulmonary embolism, I
> discovered that my local pharmacy didn't stock heparin -- there isn't
> enough call for it, it is expensive and it expires). So, if you choose
> not to stock birth control, etc., I can see that being reasonable.
>

If someone owns the pharmacy, and are running it, I understand that they
have the right to decide what to sell. If I do t like their practice, I'll
go elsewhere, but if a chain store like CVS or Rite Aid has an employee
like this, they need to be replaced. It's like deciding that you won't fill
prescriptions for people with green eyes, or talk with a stutter. I know
that a few of the meds I take aren't a regular stocked item, we used to
live in a small town, but they had no problem in getting them in a day or
two. Not stocking a medication, is a lot different than refusing to sell it
because you don't believe in it.

> However, pharmacies that do stock drugs should be able to hire people who
> will fill any and all prescriptions, and fire those who refuse. Right
> now, pharmacies would run the risk of lawsuits for religious
> discrimination, because explicit exceptions are being carved out of
> discrimination laws at a state level. (Compare this to hiring someone in
> a wheelchair -- if the job requires lifting a 25lb weight to a height of
> five feet from the floor, you don't have to hire or keep someone who
> cannot, with reasonable accommodation, do so)
>

Agreed. I really have no problem with anyone's religion, as long as I don't
have to listen to the conversion speech. It's like the stupid arguments
over computers I hear. Mac is better, Windows Sucks... If you get a
computer you like, it does what you want, why fight about it. I love my
current HP Laptop. First computer I've had in 30 years that I didn't build,
and it's become my favorite. I actually have become fond of Windows 8.1
(after adding back in a third party start menu) and the touch screen. Is it
the best machine ever, not even close, but it does everything I want. I
also love my iPad Mini, great little machine, perfect size, and I can do
most everything I can on do on my laptop, with a few exceptions. I got the
Logitech K810 Bluetooth Keyboard, and it goes with me everywhere. Again, if
you prefer Android, there are tons available, many better than iPad, when
it comes to customizing and upgrading. People either need a lot of
reassurance they made the correct purchase, or place too much of their self
worth in a gadget that will be out-of-date in a year.

> But, at the same time, as a social policy issue, we want to ensure that
> drugs are available, and that healthcare decisions are being made by
> doctors and their patients and are not being restricted by the local
> pharmacy chain. So, some regulation might make sense for a minimum set of
> stocked items, which could include birth control. Medicare could be used
> as a club here, by only covering prescriptions that are filled at fully stocked pharmacies.
>

I couldn't agree more.

> But, it's complicated balancing people's rights against each other.
>

I don't find it all that complicated. If you don't like something, then
don't use it, watch it, consume it. Try to stop being an asshole, and in
the words of Robin Williams "Shut the fuck up!" I can't stand professional
wrestling. I don't understand how my daughters ex, a major homophobe can
love it so much. Never found a need to boycott a sponsors product, try to
get the station to remove it. I just don't watch, and as amazing as it is,
it really doesn't exist in my world.

>
> That was Batwoman, who is someone else entirely. And the wedding was
> called off by the editors, causing the writer and artist to quit.
>

Old brain mush, not surprised that it was a different character. We're up
to what, 5 different Robins now?

> Batwoman is a woman, Kathy Kane, who was inspired by Batman, and dresses
> as a bat, but doesn't really work with Batman.
>
> Batgirl is traditionally Barbara Gordon (there have been several others),
> she is younger (20ish), and has worked directly with Batman.
>

I thought she was the Oracle now, because of Joker shooting her in The
Killing Joke. I really have lost touch with the DC universe.

> It's a little confusing that there are multiple Bat-females running
> around with similar names and costumes.
>
> Batlady, Batbabe, Batchick and Batbroad don't exist, but would make
> things more complicated if they did.

My comic taste have fallen out of superheroes quite a while ago. I read
things like Walking Dead, Girls, Strangers in Paradise, Y: The Last Man,
some of the Doctor Who titles and Serenity. The Transformers titles are a
fun read sometimes, but $4 for a 10 minute read is depressing. I have
started reading the new Harley Quinn, my friend used to order it for me
because I love the character, but I don't actively track it down.

[Judoon]

That sucks. Don't let 2 women get married, but it was OK for Harley Quinn
(who happens to be my dream woman) can blow-up kids with a GameBoy.

[Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats]

On Tuesday, October 7, 2014 9:19:01 AM UTC-7, Judoon wrote:
> > It's the Holocaust Minimizers that really get my goat. "Sure, Hitler killed
> > some Jews, but the Jews have been lying about the number to build support
> > and sympathy as they control the world from Israel, and force the
> > Palestinians to live under an apartheid system. Why would they do this?
> > Because they are horrible people. Makes you wonder if Hitler had the right
> > idea..."
>
> I've often thought this, he just picked the wrong people. Maybe the kids
> who don't understand that underwear is called that because it goes under
> the pants and not above, or ones that don't understand the function of a
> brim on a hat is to keep the sun out of the eyes, therefore it points to
> the front. If you wear it backwards, you should have it confiscated and be
> given a beanie.

Well, you will be pleased to know that Hitler also had the retarded and disabled killed. "Euthanized" rather than large death camps, so it was all less dramatic.

[Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats]

On Tuesday, October 7, 2014 9:19:03 AM UTC-7, Judoon wrote:
> Zobovor <zm...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 5, 2014 6:45:42 PM UTC-6, Judoon wrote:
>
> >> I have just hit the point in life that I can't get that upset about fiction.
> >> It just isn't that important in the long run.
> >
> > True story. People who get that angry about their entertainment need to
> > step back and realize that if that's the most upsetting thing they have
> > to worry about, they're doing pretty well for themselves.
>
> Completely agreed.

"Man Of Steel" still makes me angry each time I see a bit of it. It's not the death of Zod that bothers me, but Superman having no faith in humanity, and inspiring no one. Perry White ends up closer to the character of Superman than Superman does.

But, I think there is a difference between an average "piece of fiction" and a movie about a cultural icon.

> In GI Joe I remember they showed a lot of people parachuting out of planes.
> It's been so long though I don't remember if it was the norm, or just
> something that happened and stuck in my mind. It's like never forgetting
> that the best way to tell the real Optimus from the fake was a race. Stupid
> throwaway things that I didn't throwaway.

I have a half-finished fanfic that has a throwaway bit that really explains the race. Someday, I will decide whether the story should have a serious tone or a comedic tone and then finish it...

[Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats]

I'm old. I remember when we were supposed to celebrate our differences rather than ignore them. So many different ethnicities have so many different attractive bits.

I hope this medium-brown colored future still has Mexican food and sushi as two separate things...

[Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats]

On Tuesday, October 7, 2014 9:19:06 AM UTC-7, Judoon wrote:
> "Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats" <Gustav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> If someone owns the pharmacy, and are running it, I understand that they
> have the right to decide what to sell. If I do t like their practice, I'll
> go elsewhere, but if a chain store like CVS or Rite Aid has an employee
> like this, they need to be replaced. It's like deciding that you won't fill
> prescriptions for people with green eyes, or talk with a stutter.

Not selling a medication in general is a lot different than not selling it to a certain class of people. I think the former is a lot more defensible.

So, I have a lot more sympathy for the pharmacists who won't sell birth control to anyone than I do for the bakers who won't bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.

> > However, pharmacies that do stock drugs should be able to hire people who
> > will fill any and all prescriptions, and fire those who refuse. Right
> > now, pharmacies would run the risk of lawsuits for religious
> > discrimination, because explicit exceptions are being carved out of
> > discrimination laws at a state level. (Compare this to hiring someone in
> > a wheelchair -- if the job requires lifting a 25lb weight to a height of
> > five feet from the floor, you don't have to hire or keep someone who
> > cannot, with reasonable accommodation, do so)
>
> >
>
> Agreed. I really have no problem with anyone's religion, as long as I don't
> have to listen to the conversion speech.

The conversion speeches don't bother me, it's the demand for special rights.

Take the recent Hobby Lobby decision, where the Supreme Court decided that a corporation can have religious views, and doesn't have to pay for health insurance for its employees that would violate those views on birth control that they believe is an abortificant, even if it is not actually an abortificant.

As an agnostic, even if I were to have a strongly held belief that abortion cheapens human life, I would not have the right to impose that belief on others in my employ, because it is not a religious belief.

I just want to be able to impose my beliefs on others as much as religious people can, is that so bad?

Ok, bad example.

A local church here is protesting a local marijuana shop because it is located next to the church. The law sets distances for parks, playgrounds, etc, but not churches. I don't see why a church should have a right to project its values beyond its property line.

(I also don't see why they aren't bothered by the liquor store across the street)

> > But, it's complicated balancing people's rights against each other.
>
> I don't find it all that complicated. If you don't like something, then
> don't use it, watch it, consume it. Try to stop being an asshole, and in
> the words of Robin Williams "Shut the fuck up!" I can't stand professional
> wrestling. I don't understand how my daughters ex, a major homophobe can
> love it so much. Never found a need to boycott a sponsors product, try to
> get the station to remove it. I just don't watch, and as amazing as it is,
> it really doesn't exist in my world.

It's complicated because rights end up overlapping. Should you be compelled to take an action that you find morally offensive?, etc.

And I will happily boycott sponsors. If they are funding something I find offensive, I don't want to indirectly fund it. I've stopped going to restaurants where the owners were contributing money to overturn same-sex marriage in Washington state, and I choose other products and stores based on their commitment to workers rights.

Funding hate speech (even mild hate speech like Rush Limbaugh) is not something I want to support.

> > That was Batwoman, who is someone else entirely. And the wedding was
> > called off by the editors, causing the writer and artist to quit.

> Old brain mush, not surprised that it was a different character. We're up
> to what, 5 different Robins now?

Dick, Jason, Tim, Stephanie, Damien... and I think two future Robins from other timelines (Dark Knight Returns, and Future's End).

> > Batwoman is a woman, Kathy Kane, who was inspired by Batman, and dresses
> > as a bat, but doesn't really work with Batman.
>
> > Batgirl is traditionally Barbara Gordon (there have been several others),
> > she is younger (20ish), and has worked directly with Batman.
>
> I thought she was the Oracle now, because of Joker shooting her in The
> Killing Joke. I really have lost touch with the DC universe.

They rebooted everything a few years ago, and now she had been Oracle but got miracle surgery or something and is Batgirl again.

Given how many other characters had major injuries they got miraculously better from (Batman's broken back leaps to mind), it was always odd that she never did, but I liked her as Oracle -- fighting crime through knowledge, detective work, and organizing others, and never letting her disability stop her.

Even if she had gotten a miracle cure, I think she was more effective as Oracle and should have kept that up.

> > It's a little confusing that there are multiple Bat-females running
> > around with similar names and costumes.
>
> > Batlady, Batbabe, Batchick and Batbroad don't exist, but would make
> > things more complicated if they did.
>
> My comic taste have fallen out of superheroes quite a while ago. I read
> things like Walking Dead, Girls, Strangers in Paradise, Y: The Last Man,
> some of the Doctor Who titles and Serenity. The Transformers titles are a
> fun read sometimes, but $4 for a 10 minute read is depressing. I have
> started reading the new Harley Quinn, my friend used to order it for me
> because I love the character, but I don't actively track it down.

I read Superman from when I was 8 or so to the current reboot. I did read Grant Morrison's run, but nothing else in the new reboot interested me. Right now, I am down to Wonder Woman (new creative team will end that shortly), Hawkeye, Saga and Silver Surfer.

[No One In Particular]

And I'm glad for him. I genuinely am. But I don't share those beliefs,
and if my doctor prescribes me something, it's my choice to try it or
not, not his.

Brian

[No One In Particular]

On 10/7/2014 11:19 AM, Judoon wrote:

>

> In GI Joe I remember they showed a lot of people parachuting out of planes.
> It's been so long though I don't remember if it was the norm, or just
> something that happened and stuck in my mind. It's like never forgetting
> that the best way to tell the real Optimus from the fake was a race. Stupid
> throwaway things that I didn't throwaway.
>

>>
>

> I couldn't agree more. The scene this guy made in class should have been
> funny in a twisted way, but it was so insane the class was silent.
>
> Thaddeus Cultt
>

That was the norm for GI Joe. Couldn't show people dying in nasty plane
crashes now, could we?

As for the guy from class...I'd like to say something witty and
dismissive here, but honestly people who are that stubborn and willful
about ignoring reality make me nervous, honestly.

Brian

[No One In Particular]

On 10/7/2014 11:19 AM, Judoon wrote:

> Since when do most people feel they need to justify what they do. I think a
> lot of the complaining and trashing others, and threats is because they sit
> behind a screen at the safety of their keyboard. They feel empowered
> because there are no ramifications to their actions. They are safe to come
> off as important and entitled because people can't see how small and
> helpless they are.
>
> Thaddeus Cultt
>

I find it true in real life also, though.

For an example, I remember a girl at work stating categorically that
wearing motorcycle helmets was a bad thing, because she knew someone who
knew someone who had been killed in a wreck, and the cop said that if
the guy had not been wearing a helmet, he might have made it out alive.
(How, I'm not entirely sure, but it was her story, not mine.) So she
would trot that story out every time motorcycle safety was mentioned at
break or lunch. She hated to wear a helmet,you see, and that story
proved that her personally held belief was correct, obviously and
incontrovertibly.


Brian

[Zobovor]

On Tuesday, October 7, 2014 5:37:06 PM UTC-6, No One In Particular wrote:

> So she would trot that story out every time motorcycle safety was mentioned
> at break or lunch. She hated to wear a helmet,you see, and that story proved
> that her personally held belief was correct, obviously and incontrovertibly.

In the scientific method, scientists develop a hypothesis and then conduct experiments that prove or disprove that hypothesis. If the hypothesis is proven true, it's validated as a scientific theory.

In the rest of the world, people latch on to whatever bone-headed hypothesis suits them at the moment and then they spend their entire lives carefully dismissing evidence to the contrary and using any and all evidence that supports their belief to validate it in their minds.

It's sort of like the scientific method in reverse.


Zob

[Cappeca]

Em terça-feira, 7 de outubro de 2014 13h19min05s UTC-3, Judoon escreveu:
>
> > Walking Dead seems way more tokeny than Firefly. It might be the fact
> > that there is always exactly one African-American.
> >
>
>
> I really don't see it as tokenism in Walking Dead, I really don't see the
> characters as black white or Asian - just the alive and dead.
>
>

I like when series are geographically aware of racial distribution. The Wire comes to mind.

[Cappeca]

Em domingo, 5 de outubro de 2014 12h30min57s UTC-3, Irrellius Spamticon of the Potato People. escreveu:
> On Saturday, October 4, 2014 4:16:56 AM UTC-5, Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats wrote:
>
> > If you make this a religious objection, you might be able to get away with
> > it. Much like the pharmacists who will not fulfill prescriptions for the
> > morning after pill.

> >
>
>
>
> Pharmacists get away with much much more. A pharmacist refused to fill my ex's prescription for anti-psychotics because his religion said mental illness wasn't a real thing, and that the best medicine is faith. He became a pharmacist for the express purpose of refusing to give people medications his faith said were evil.

Holy crap! Are they really entitled to do that? What if you believe in science, aren't they forcing their beliefs upon yours? Isn't denying service out of religious reasons considered prejudice?

[Cappeca]

Em domingo, 5 de outubro de 2014 22h43min27s UTC-3, Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats escreveu:
>
> It's a little confusing that there are multiple Bat-females running around with similar names and costumes.
>
>
>
> Batlady, Batbabe, Batchick and Batbroad don't exist, but would make things more complicated if they did.

There should be one called Batshit Crazy.

[Zobovor]

On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 7:11:18 AM UTC-6, Cappeca wrote:

> There should be one called Batshit Crazy.

I think they already did that one, only they use the name Batman.


Zob

[Thaddeus Cultt]

Judoon <jud...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> "Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats" <Gustav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Funny that it's always skin color, too. I don't think I've ever heard
>>> of anyone who loves green-eyed people but hates blue-eyed people, for
>>> example, or reserves a special kind of hatred in their heart for redheads.
>>
>
>

As for redheads, I forgot Cartman from South Park didn't care for them
(because of their lack of souls), but The Doctor has been quite disturbed
in not becoming one.

[Thaddeus Cultt]

No One In Particular <brianc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 10/7/2014 11:19 AM, Judoon wrote:
>
>>
>> In GI Joe I remember they showed a lot of people parachuting out of planes.
>> It's been so long though I don't remember if it was the norm, or just
>> something that happened and stuck in my mind. It's like never forgetting
>> that the best way to tell the real Optimus from the fake was a race. Stupid
>> throwaway things that I didn't throwaway.
>>
>
>>>
>>
>> I couldn't agree more. The scene this guy made in class should have been
>> funny in a twisted way, but it was so insane the class was silent.
>>
>> Thaddeus Cultt
>>
>
>
>
> That was the norm for GI Joe. Couldn't show people dying in nasty plane
> crashes now, could we?
>

For almost two months after 9/11 TV didn't mind showing planes crash into
the Trade Center, I don't see how a cartoon can be any more scaring to
children.

> As for the guy from class...I'd like to say something witty and
> dismissive here, but honestly people who are that stubborn and willful
> about ignoring reality make me nervous, honestly.
>

Agreed. In many ways it really was just sad. It's weird how people can just
ignore fact. I know someone who will not accept that dinosaurs are more
than thousands of years old, because the Earth isn't millions of years old.


--
In the end, the only one left smiling was the jester... and his was only
painted on.

[Thaddeus Cultt]

No One In Particular <brianc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I built a computer for a guy back when the big Columbine School shooting
took place, he was watching the news story when I delivered and hooked it
up, and he said that if the other students and teachers were armed like
they should have been they could have stopped the trouble. So in his view
it was better to give all the students guns.

[Thaddeus Cultt]

I don't believe it either, just making a statement on their beliefs.
Personally all my imaginary friends don't seem to judge other people.
Occasionally they ridicule people who are overly obsessed with Dragon Ball
Z or Pokémon though, but they can be assholes. ;)

[Thaddeus Cultt]

"Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats" <Gustav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 7, 2014 9:19:06 AM UTC-7, Judoon wrote:
>> "Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats" <Gustav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Not selling a medication in general is a lot different than not selling
> it to a certain class of people. I think the former is a lot more defensible.
>
> So, I have a lot more sympathy for the pharmacists who won't sell birth
> control to anyone than I do for the bakers who won't bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.
>

I think that both would fall into the small-minded asshole department.

>
> The conversion speeches don't bother me, it's the demand for special rights.
>
> Take the recent Hobby Lobby decision, where the Supreme Court decided
> that a corporation can have religious views, and doesn't have to pay for
> health insurance for its employees that would violate those views on
> birth control that they believe is an abortificant, even if it is not
> actually an abortificant.
>
> As an agnostic, even if I were to have a strongly held belief that
> abortion cheapens human life, I would not have the right to impose that
> belief on others in my employ, because it is not a religious belief.
>
> I just want to be able to impose my beliefs on others as much as
> religious people can, is that so bad?
>

I don't see how abortion is any different than joining the military.
Sending 18 year olds to die playing world police in a foreign country
pretty much cheapens life as well. Amazing how so many people seem to want
to control how old someone is when they die.

> Ok, bad example.
>
> A local church here is protesting a local marijuana shop because it is
> located next to the church. The law sets distances for parks,
> playgrounds, etc, but not churches. I don't see why a church should have
> a right to project its values beyond its property line.
>
> (I also don't see why they aren't bothered by the liquor store across the street)
>

Maybe churches should start paying taxes, then they can bitch about how the
laws could cover them.

>
> It's complicated because rights end up overlapping. Should you be
> compelled to take an action that you find morally offensive?, etc.
>

I found the existence of Mitt Romney VERY offensive, so I didn't vote for
him, watch his ads, etc. didn't start my own hate campaign.

> And I will happily boycott sponsors. If they are funding something I find
> offensive, I don't want to indirectly fund it. I've stopped going to
> restaurants where the owners were contributing money to overturn same-sex
> marriage in Washington state, and I choose other products and stores
> based on their commitment to workers rights.
>

What stores are committed to workers rights. Around here the "workers" are
the ones who do the most work for little reward, while the "owners" are the
ones getting the most benefit. They sell shitty products, some at
tremendous markups, screwing over any competitors.

> Funding hate speech (even mild hate speech like Rush Limbaugh) is not
> something I want to support.
>

That's why I don't like my taxes funding churches. Seems that the most
hateful thing I see is the church here.

>
> Dick, Jason, Tim, Stephanie, Damien... and I think two future Robins from
> other timelines (Dark Knight Returns, and Future's End).
>

I read a few of the issues with Damien, but that was the last of the Batman
ones I read when the store was empty.

>
> They rebooted everything a few years ago, and now she had been Oracle but
> got miracle surgery or something and is Batgirl again.
>

Guess it makes sense as far as super hero comics go.

> Given how many other characters had major injuries they got miraculously
> better from (Batman's broken back leaps to mind), it was always odd that
> she never did, but I liked her as Oracle -- fighting crime through
> knowledge, detective work, and organizing others, and never letting her
> disability stop her.
>
> Even if she had gotten a miracle cure, I think she was more effective as
> Oracle and should have kept that up.
>

I agree. The Killing Joke was always one of my favorite one shots.

As far as Batman's broken back, how they did it in the last Batman movie
was ridiculous. He recovered from it in what, 2 months? Seems like DC
Comics movies just don't work as well as Marvel, but when it comes to the
Animated releases I usually enjoy DC more.

>
> I read Superman from when I was 8 or so to the current reboot. I did read
> Grant Morrison's run, but nothing else in the new reboot interested me.
> Right now, I am down to Wonder Woman (new creative team will end that
> shortly), Hawkeye, Saga and Silver Surfer.

I read the Silver Surfer during the Howard the Duck days, but that was a
while ago. I did read Wonder Woman for around 13 issues or so when there
was a woman writing it (for some reason her name doesn't come to mind right
now), and it was pretty good. I don't really have any answer why I stopped
reading the super hero comics, I still watch a lot of the movies, guess
somewhere Dow the line I was board and wanted something different. I know
it might come off as cheap, but I guess I just felt that I wasn't getting
$3-$5 worth of entertainment from most comics. It's pretty much how one day
a long time ago I just stopped buying Mad Magazine.

[Thaddeus Cultt]

Unfortunately the only restaurant to survive in the future is Taco Bell.

[Thaddeus Cultt]

"Gustavo Wombat, of the Seattle Wombats" <Gustav...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Don't they do that in Texas too?