I've been away from the boards for a long time, and this is just...awful. Awful. Thank you for keeping us updated, Teague, and please let me know if there's anything I can do. Mike's got a few fans at my college, so I'll be passing along the link to the medical fund in the mean time.
2 2013-08-23 01:24:34
Re: Superman/Batman (Man Of Steel 2) (51 replies, posted in Off Topic)
http://hollywoodreporter.com/news/ben-a … man-612907
So this happened.
3 2013-08-14 07:30:51
Re: Random Movie Talk That Probably Doesn't Deserve Its Own Thread (971 replies, posted in Movie Stuff)
I think it's a flight suit or uniform of some sort, Trey. Rocket Raccoon is an accomplished starship pilot and military leader!
I am sure those details helped convince you that this movie is going to be the former.
4 2013-08-14 06:56:58
Re: Random Movie Talk That Probably Doesn't Deserve Its Own Thread (971 replies, posted in Movie Stuff)
bullet3 wrote:
This is "rocket racoon" in a multi-hundred million dollar movie coming out next summer:
Marvel done lost their minds, but it might just work in a Buckaroo Banzai weirdness kind of way.
This is so going to bomb though
THANK GOD someone is finally talking about Rocket Raccoon. I feel like I have been waiting for this moment (the moment where a raccoon is a star in what might be the most popular movie franchise ever) my entire life.
5 2013-08-14 06:22:51
Re: Texters and Shushers (123 replies, posted in Episodes)
fireproof78 wrote:
A query: what if movies reverted back to more of a stage play where (depending on the play) audience participation was encouraged?
I would say that it is currently acceptable for a minority of movies (Rocky Horror, the Room, horror 'don't go in there!' movies, etc.) in the same way that it's okay for a minority of plays, which would be about 3-5 mainstream shows. I think you're thinking more of audience reaction, not participation.
6 2013-08-09 02:32:47
Re: Doctor Who is awesome, yeah? (985 replies, posted in Off Topic)
Jimmy B wrote:
Allison wrote:Just pointing out that "fangirls who started watching in 2005" aren't the only ones who make judgements based on how hot someone is.
Fair enough, not sure why, though, as nobody has actually denied that being the case. I'm glad they cast Capaldi, I personally don't care if they cast attractive people in any role. I don't find Catherine Tate particularly attractive but I liked her in the role of Donna. The fact that I personally find Karen Gillan attractive is merely just a 'bonus', I would still have watched series 5 and 6 regardless of who they cast as the companion.
But then I am neither a teenage girl or a horny middle aged showrunner, so what do I know?
I mean, I'm a teenage girl and I find Capaldi hot, but I can't really speak for the group.
I hope for another Doctor/Companion relationship like 10/Donna's. I hate all these "you are a mystery I must solve" arcs. I just want someone funny and tough and fairly normal.
7 2013-08-08 02:12:43
Re: Doctor Who is awesome, yeah? (985 replies, posted in Off Topic)
Just pointing out that "fangirls who started watching in 2005" aren't the only ones who make judgements based on how hot someone is.
8 2013-08-08 01:21:32
Re: Doctor Who is awesome, yeah? (985 replies, posted in Off Topic)
Jimmy B wrote:
It's quite pathetic, isn't it? Wah, he's too old, wah, he's not hot, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
Yeah, I'm so glad we don't cast Doctor Who actors based on appearance!
Oh...wait...
"And I thought, ‘well she’s really good. It’s just a shame she’s so wee and dumpy…When she was about to come through to the auditions I nipped out for a minute and I saw Karen walking on the corridor towards me and I realised she was 5’11, slim and gorgeous and I thought ‘Oh, oh that’ll probably work’." -Steven Moffat on the casting process for the new companion
9 2013-08-05 18:53:34
Re: Doctor Who is awesome, yeah? (985 replies, posted in Off Topic)
Cotterpin Doozer wrote:
Allison wrote:I think Capaldi's a great actor, but I probably won't start watching again until Moffat leaves.
Moffat has created stories that I like in the past, and although there wasn't much for me to like in series 6 or 7, one of those things was Matt Smith. But truth be told, if Smith had stayed on for another series as the Doctor, I probably give the show a past until Moffat left as well. As it stands, however, I'm much fonder of Capaldi than Smith, so I'm gonna give the next series at least a few episodes before I bail out.
I liked his episodes in other seasons (original opinion alert) but I hate his style as a showrunner. Riddles and mysteries are wonderful, but making things as complicated and convoluted as possible and then giving us an answer in the finale isn't a great way to craft them. I prefer Toby Whithouse.
10 2013-08-05 06:43:31
Re: Doctor Who is awesome, yeah? (985 replies, posted in Off Topic)
Jimmy B wrote:
Holden wrote:I vaguely remember hearing someone say that they wouldn't do a gender swap because they didn't want to have to try and explain that to children. It is technically a kid's show.
This is true, it is a show that has a huge child audience so I can see the dilemma.
If kids can handle the idea of a 1200 year old alien who travels through space and time and has a body that changes every few years, I think they can handle the idea of a regeneration changing one's gender. There's not really a lot to explain there.
I think Capaldi's a great actor, but I probably won't start watching again until Moffat leaves.
11 2013-08-03 05:58:18
Re: Doctor Who is awesome, yeah? (985 replies, posted in Off Topic)
Doctor Submarine wrote:
If it's another lanky white dude I'll be severely disappointed. It's been half a century. Let's mix things up a bit.
It probably won't happen, but I am praying right alongside you.
12 2013-07-27 09:13:13
Re: Kickstarter. (48 replies, posted in Episodes)
paulou wrote:
And Brian, yes, the author of that manual was advocating for sexual assault. It's like, exactly what sexual assault is.
Kudos to Kickstarter for admitting they didn't act quickly enough when complaints were brought to them and in turn donating to survivor resources.
13 2013-07-25 20:53:06
Re: Doctor Who is awesome, yeah? (985 replies, posted in Off Topic)
I love Alex Kingston, but I feel like the Moffat doesn't always know what to do with River. She seems to orbit the Doctor and dispense clues and...not much else. There's so much more that could have happened.
14 2013-07-23 06:43:45
Re: Last movie you watched (2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)
Finally got around to watching Side Effects. It's well plotted and gripping, but I can't really say more without ruining the experience. It's also great to see a movie that feels fully formed but clocks in at under 2 hours.
15 2013-07-18 22:04:44
Re: Grab Bag 3 (112 replies, posted in Episodes)
Oh, I should mentioned I am BARELY hanging on now. It has gotten worse.
16 2013-07-15 19:39:18
Re: Grab Bag 3 (112 replies, posted in Episodes)
Whenever people talk about how the Newsroom isn't that bad, I have a flashback to the episode where Mackenzie stomped on a phone (and then poured coffee on it!) because she accidentally sent an email to the whole office.
Best producer in the business, guys.
17 2013-07-09 21:10:26
Re: Grab Bag 3 (112 replies, posted in Episodes)
I think Episode 3 was a definite improvement. I really love the show runner (he created and wrote the Runaways comics, which you should all read) so I'm hanging on for him.
18 2013-07-05 05:53:27
Re: Man of Steel (162 replies, posted in Off Topic)
Trey wrote:
Meanwhile, Star Trek Into Darkness is just a dumb movie that came out in the summer. The problem is that it was actually trying to be smart.
And it actually seemed to believe it was smart, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
19 2013-07-05 05:51:31
Re: Last movie you watched (2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)
I saw The Heat, and actually had a pretty good time. It's loud and stupid sometimes, but the other times it's whip smart and very funny. Another one where you could miss it, but it's not a waste of an afternoon.
20 2013-07-03 04:09:34
Re: The cool photos thread (Bandwidth Warning, Yo!) (956 replies, posted in Off Topic)
fireproof78 wrote:
It doesn't actually affect me
Glad someone finally pointed this out!!!!
-The Person With The Uterus
I see your kitten and raise you to a bunny with ice cream
21 2013-07-03 01:04:43
Re: A Song of Ice and Fire (BOOK READERS ONLY; MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD) (303 replies, posted in Off Topic)
Well we do know one thing: she was a slave. I would say that piece of her background could imply that she won't be content in, say, leaving the smallfolk to rot while the lords fight it out. I think she's a lot like Varys in that she doesn't care for the politics so much as the policy.
But, then again, Varys has been ruthless in some actions (that whole "engineering a war" nonsense) and I think Melisandre could be pushed to something horrible if it could be justified as "good for the realm".
22 2013-07-02 20:41:21
Re: A Song of Ice and Fire (BOOK READERS ONLY; MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD) (303 replies, posted in Off Topic)
Trey wrote:
I dunno if I would label Melisandre as evil, but she is definitely dangerous. And worse still, she's often right. And if she's right, then where's the line to be drawn when it comes to her doing what needs to be done?
That's the thing! I agree that burning people at the stake is probably not the best way to go, but she is really the only one concerned with a) ending the war with minimum casualties and b) THE TERRIFYING ICE ZOMBIES. I do sympathize with those who wish to see Edric Storm and Gendry and all of the other bastards who carry king's blood live, but it seems to be the price to pay for peace. It's use a smoke Terminator to kill Renly in his tent, or waste thousands of lives and valuable land trying to kill him on the field. And if a few sacrifices can hold off the Others, are they justifiable? Does saving one child you know justify letting thousands you don't die?
In the long run, I worry about the people that become devoted to the LOL in the way Queen Selyse and her men do. I think view Stannis as someone who doesn't view himself as Azor Ahai, but is choosing embrace that myth as a means to an end. That is, he'll stop all this fire nonsense once order is restored. But if Selyse still has power during peace time, will we see more "heretics" being burned?
23 2013-07-02 18:36:41
Re: A Song of Ice and Fire (BOOK READERS ONLY; MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD) (303 replies, posted in Off Topic)
Cotterpin Doozer wrote:
redxavier wrote:Allison wrote:Yeah, but y'all keep talking about how diverse it is. If you can't name a few POC who aren't anonymous or dead, it's really not. That's my big point.
Out of curiosity, how many "POC", which is frankly an awful term, does it take to make something diverse in your eyes?
This is a really good question, and one I ask myself from time to time. There are definitely times when I've been put off by tv shows and movies because they were "too white," but it's hard to pinpoint exactly where that threshold is. For the most part, I'd say it's really a matter of quality over quantity, so yeah, anonymous characters and extras don't count. The cast of Game of Thrones is huge, so there's really no reason for this show not to have a few more significant characters who also reflect racial diversity.
(People of color is the term preferred by actual, you know, POC. What would you prefer?)
Well, I guess the short answer would be more than 3, but Cotterpin's response is better.
There isn't an exact threshold for making something "diverse". But there are some shows that do it very well. Let's look at Elementary: New York is a diverse place, and the show reflects that. People of color (and queer/trans* folk, and women) portray both "good" and "evil" characters, are not relegated to B plots and background extras. They are not defined by their race (or gender, or sexuality), but it is made clear that it is an important part of who they are and that it is often relevant. In short, they're treated like full blown people.
Game of Thrones has continually disappointed me, both as a source text and a show. POC are relegated to being savages, slaves, and, in Show Xaro's case, a villain. In a fantasy setting, why not have a wide cross section of roles played by people of color? If the powers in this fictional realm are all white, I'm going to hope that there is at least a bit of reasoning behind it, otherwise it's lazy writing. If it's based on medieval Europe, the explanation would probably be discrimination, colonialism, colorism, etc.
And even if you don't think there's "enough" textual evidence for the Martells being brown, is there textual evidence that they shouldn't be? Why not take the opportunity to get some different looking people on that show? Especially in a role like Oberyn, who is viewed as "other" because of his culture and sexuality, but it really a hero with a wonderful arc. Give me Oded Fehr! Or Elyes Gabel! I did hear Naveen Andrews was busy, though.
Oh, and I was 100% serious with that Melisandre question. Do you guys really think she's evil? I would say Team Stannis probably has some of the most solid "moral" motivation in the series, if you can really rule something objectively moral.
24 2013-07-02 03:15:37
Re: Last movie you watched (2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)
fireproof78 wrote:
Zarban wrote:Battle Royale (2000)
It reminded quite a bit of Red Dawn. It's a murder fantasy with all the moral ambiguity wrung out of it* for our hapless heroes but with still enough Lord of the Flies bite to make it interesting social satire about high school.
* The only real fault with the film is how the opening claims that the youth is out of control, but we see only one character act out violently before the students are shipped off.
The rest were shipped off due to preordering Grand Theft Auto V and its clear association with high school violence
In the book, they actually make a big deal about how the country has banned both rock music and violent video games since they're a bad influence 
25 2013-07-02 03:13:27
Re: A Song of Ice and Fire (BOOK READERS ONLY; MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD) (303 replies, posted in Off Topic)
redxavier wrote:
Allison wrote:But it's silly to say that skin color isn't an important aspect of his character. Look at the way people talk about Elia. Look at the way Dornish folk are viewed by the rest of Westeros. Skin color is an important dynamic to discuss when talking about Martells, in the same way gender is an important dynamic to discuss when talking about Catelyn.
I think you're reading between the lines a fair amount here. We have access to the thoughts of a perceptive and observant individual who at no point refers to skin colour when thinking about them. I don't recall Tyrion assessing Oberyn's skin colour as a factor in his ability as a champion for instance. Do you have any examples of Westerosi attitudes towards the Martells/Dornish along the lines of their skin colour? If you could find some, I'd be able to see where this is coming from.
But in their absence, it's like saying that the Tully's hair colour plays a part in their identity. Does it? Well, there's no evidence for it. Which makes for a shaky foundation to be all 'he aint brown enough' on the same level of importance as being fat is for Sam.
I mean, I'd say the whole point of talking about reading between the lines. But I'm happy to elaborate:
Let's talk about WOC. Women of color are often compared to white women. They are told they're pretty "for an (insert ethnicity here) girl". If they're smart, it's considered exceptional since "most WOC aren't". If they are not desexualized, they are exoticized as something "new" and "different". Think of the tropes of "primal" black sexuality and docile Asian women.
You can see that Elia, as a WOC, is viewed exactly this way by the Westerosi. Elia is described as pretty by certain characters (Howland Reed, other Martells, etc.) who have no particular social biases against the Dornish. Barristan, on the other hand, compares her to Ashara Dayne and thinks her nothing special. Barristan specifically points out Ashara’s pale skin in contrast. Remember, pale skin is valued in most cultures both as a side effect of colonialism and because it denotes a higher class (never having to work outside). She’s also desexualised repeatedly, often while people lift Lyanna (another pale Westerosi woman) up as the pinnacle of beauty and grace.
The comments we hear from other characters are almost always comments about her looks, even though once we were told that she impressed Rhaegar with her wit. No one (sans other Martells) talk about her intelligence; instead they treat Elia like someone to be pitied, since she could never measure up to someone like Lyanna. Her intelligence, good looks, and overall worth is downplayed because of who she is, where she was from, and because she was "sickly"*. Despite being the first born daughter in a respected and wealthy house, Tywin refused a marriage to Jaime, instead offering Tyrion as a match. Offering the son you view as "monstrous" isn't really a fair deal, unless you think the woman is worthless.
As far as POC being generally looked down on by Westerosi, Lazy Leo in the prologue of AFFC says thus to a mixed child of a Summer Islander and a Dornishman:
"Your mother was a monkey from the Summer Isles. The Dornish will fuck anything with a hole between its legs. Meaning no offense. You may be brown as a nut, but at least you bathe."
Throughout that prologue, much and more is made of Alleras looking different from everyone else. He's called "the Sphinx" and his dark skin and black eyes are mentioned in every paragraph. Clearly, race matters to those in Oldtown.
*She probably was sickly, due to her premature birth, but I don't think it was as serious as people think it is. She managed to travel, appear at large social events like tourneys, and bear three children. I think people viewing her as weak and delicate could also be racially motivated.
redxavier wrote:
Allison wrote:Eye color and hair color are not really the same as race. I have yet to see people being systematically disenfranchised and devalued because they are brunette instead of ginger, in the real world or Westeros/Essos.
So you see nothing wrong with the fact that prominent red-haired characters are being played by non-redheads, except for the evil Melisandre and the wildling Ygritte?
Hair color is not synonymous with race. Also, separate debate: Is Melisandre really evil? I would say she's got a pretty strong moral compass and solid motivations for her actions. She's just trying to save the world, and everyone is obsessed with some blacksmith with a bad mustache.
redxavier wrote:
As a redhead, it disappoints me that you don't think there's any problem with the way that we're treated. The feelings that lie at the heart of racism, and the victimisation that results, apply for any point of difference, whether it be sexual, racial, cultural or visual. Some differences are more greatly accentuated among certain groups, but that's not to say that no problems exist.
As someone whose family has continually suffered slavery, genocide, systematic rape and sterilization, being chased out of our homeland only to face more institutionalized discrimination, I've gotta say that it disappoints me you think those are analogous with whatever problems (?) face the ginger community.
redxavier wrote:
Besides, it's not like GOT has a racial diversity quota to fill.
Yeah, but y'all keep talking about how diverse it is. If you can't name a few POC who aren't anonymous or dead, it's really not. That's my big point.