2,126

(165 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Dave wrote:

How do you think Paul Verhoeven went with his treatment of women in Starship Troopers?

Since no one else has taken on this one, I will be happy to take it on, though I warn that it is a bit of a rant and might belong in the unpopular opinions thread wink

I think that Verhoeven treats women poorly, as the women keeping falling for the better men-Dizzy for Rico, Carmen for Zander. There is some respect given to women through the "Rodger Young's" captain, who promptly dies on the bridge. So, there is a definite mixing but not equal treatment given the at times the subversive role women take-Rico goes from rank and file to officer and must go and save the girl-not exactly feminist propaganda:
http://cache.io9.com/assets/images/8/2008/07/sky_io9.flv.jpg

In point of fact, the original book was more pro-women than the film ended up being. I know the film is supposed to be a satire of the book, given Verhoeven's experience with fascism, but its treatment of women is not the best.

In the book, women are not featured as prominently as in the movie, but their role is treated with more reverence and respect than in the film. The captains of the staships are all female, with few exceptions, because females are stated to be better suited to the rigors of flying a starship than men. However, since this is an Army story, the Navy figures little than transportation. However, even Rico's biased perspective on the Navy still shines out praise for women, including his captain.

Verhoeven merely treats the women as set dressings, giving us the token shower scene, the 20 minute joke, and the soldier saving the damsel in distress. Sorry, the book may not be feminist propaganda, but its better than the film.

2,127

(2,061 replies, posted in Episodes)

switch wrote:

I nominate Lion King and Tangled.  Lion King cause it's just an awesome beautiful movie to look at and Tangled because it's CG that feels painterly.

Tangled yes but I've heard the crew often described Lion King as Hamlet so what else to say big_smile

2,128

(165 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I like the Prince Bride concept, especially the part where the prince says "I will never love again." It strikes me as a very powerful line that would drive the character through the film.

2,129

(216 replies, posted in Episodes)

Teague wrote:

Can I thoroughly derail this conversation from the awkward "lol sexism" aftermath?

Answer me this.

How could The Avengers have been better? Furthermore, what were the mistakes?

Teague! Quit trolling threads and derailing them with your questions  tongue

I enjoyed the Avengers a lot (saw it twice in a week-that was weird) and felt it was close to being a perfect movie in the general sense that there are characters who have arcs, and change (whether or nor you agree with the changes is purely subjective).
One thing that made Avengers great is the family atmosphere of bring this group of characters together, with all their differences, manage to come together, united for a common purpose. I think the fact that they do so, with the one moment of Captain calling out orders and seeing them work together really brought in the team and family atmosphere in a organic way. Kind of like boot camp-nothing unites better than a common enemy.

I think it could have been better if it were a little tighter in the beginning, but that is a minor nitpick. I like Agent Hill, and getting to know Colson better because it makes his death more pointed. But, it does drag in the beginning but makes up for at the end.

And I never understood the gripe regarding Loki as the villain. I mean, it makes sense that people would be annoyed at having to see Thor to get it but I thought his motivation was well done and kept driving the movie.

2,130

(165 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I like the fact that Joss provides powerful female characters but he is certainly not a feminist by any means.
I always enjoy seeing strong women and their stories as evolving characters, but they certainly are not paragons of feminist virtue. I read a couple of other blogs and opinions of others, because the only female characters I know that Joss has written is in Firefly, in which a variety of female roles are portrayed. I think Zoe is probably the strongest, and battles that within herself between respecting her husband and her captain, plus the duty to both. However, despite her strong exterior, its obvious that she still relies on male figures, which was a point that I noted from another blog.

I honestly am looking forward to your paper, Allison, as well as your comments as to why you think Joss is not the feminist icon powerhouse smile

2,131

(216 replies, posted in Episodes)

iJim wrote:

I ogled women in comics as a kid. For me, there is no dispute over the sexualization and objectification of women in comics. Or I was especially preverse somehow. But compared to Batman the animated series or the X-Men cartoon, you get an idea what an un-sexualized heroine looks like. They were characters who happened to be women. Not much to ogle.

I don't have much to add here other than I largely agree with Dorkman's points about the systemic problems in comics, the west, and most of the world in general.

Don't forget - African-American men were able to vote before woman of any race were in the US. And just as racism still exists institutionally, sexism is equally as prevalent throughout society. The major problem is how almost invisible it can be because of social norms.

clap

2,132

(216 replies, posted in Episodes)

Zarban wrote:

Women's romance novels, which I hold to reveal the darkest heart of the female psyche, uniformly depict protagonist men as handsome, confident, and competent. On the few occasions when those novels depict sex graphically, it has become something of a scandal.

But that is not the fullness of female sexual fantasy. The looks of a man are not, repeat not, ever played up over other features like you listed, competence and confidence, as well as other desirable traits. Female fantasy, as I have said before and have had affirmed by Allison, is not looks based.
I'll take your point and reverse it. Comic books are written primarily for a male audience, right? Ok, the men are presented in the peak of physical perfection and yet people are saying that they are being sexualized. Ok, that means that men want to see buff men, to take your point about women's magazines.

Also, as Dorkman has pointed out, this is regarding sexism and comic books, not Western culture at large, though you are right that sexism continues to pervade Western culture against women. We men do not see it because we are born in to a privileged system. Is it being changed? Yes, but that does not mean that a problem still does not exist.

And someone explain to me how Western sexism is not even on the same league. Sexism, regardless of form, is wrong because it holds one group of people and their needs down, or uses them to satisfy the needs of the other. Like Dorkman said, Black Widow is service to the male population because it accents her breasts and rear for no other reason than just for looks. I mean, look at Agent Hill. Her cleavage is not on display-she wears a uniform the same as the rest of the SHIELD bridge crew. But Scarlett does. and she is shown for a male audience. That is sexism, to highlight her body and objectify her parts for the sake of drawing in a male audience.

2,133

(216 replies, posted in Episodes)

ShadowDuelist wrote:
Dorkman wrote:

Sexualizing [men] would tend to make the generally-heterosexual-male audience uncomfortable.

Speaking of, would you agree that this guy got sexualized?

Well, thank you for citing one example...care to note how many other examples are around for male sexualization?

2,134

(216 replies, posted in Episodes)

avatar wrote:

Sexualized and sexy and idealized and "primary purpose" are just abstract categories with no clearly defined boundaries and lots of grey area in between. You have your own interpretation where one ends and another begins and that's fine. One man's "fuck doll" is another's "meh". I don't find the Scarlett pose that qualitatively different from the male poses.  So I'm going to have to repeat what Brian said, and politely disagree with you on this topic, Dorkman. When it came to the Looper discussion on the equivalence of killing a child with killing an innocent adult, I agreed with you on that point, against most others who were arguing there was a difference.

But, the sexism should be apparent when females are presented like Catwoman was in the comic Allison pictured. I happened to review a selection of comics and noted the poses of both the men and women, especially the women given our conversation here. The problem of saying "its all subjective so why fight about it?" is that it fails to acknowledge that there is a problem at all. But there is, but we men do not recognize it.
Its not about personal opinion here- Dorkman is trying to call out how it is built in to the comic world. I don't think its as subjective as you think it is.
The problem, as I see it, is that we just regard it par for the course. Many articles I read regarding sexism in comics is that it is normal, the way  females have always been portrayed, that it is just part of the interesting world they live in. The tight outfits are unrealistic physiques are true of both men and women, so what's all the fuss about?
But tight costumes and unrealistic bodies are not the only problem-look at the evolution of Power Girl's outfit:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-n6pCU1pKiG8/Tic-RDBHbjI/AAAAAAAAABE/UirmoJ37VFU/s320/power-girl-through-the-years-power-girl-supergirl-dc-comics-demotivational-poster-1276076621.jpg

2,135

(29 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Happy Thanksgiving to my DiF friends. I am truly thankful to be able to rant about movies and still be able to hug about it at the end of the day. We may not always agree but that's ok smile
You guys are great!
And thanks to Dorkman for kicking this off smile

2,136

(216 replies, posted in Episodes)

avatar wrote:

Men and women are different. What is sexual to one, is not necessarily sexual to the other. That's why Dorkman's example of Ironman bending over is a false comparison. No woman would find that sexy. She may find a ripped male standing upright in a dominant position just as sexualized as men do of a woman bending over. It's the end result or the concept of sexualization that's the key, not the specific pose, as different poses work depending on gender. In that way, both males and females are sexualized, but in ways that reflect different readers' instincts.

No, that's not the point. The point is the uneven treatment females get in comics. I am 100% with Dorkman on this one, and have yet to see convincing arguments otherwise. The point is not whether or not woman will find them sexually attractive-the point is that they are highlighting specific aspects of anatomy of women and women only-its sexism because male characters are treated in an idealized form, as Dorkman has been saying, while women are treated the same almost across the board.

The argument that "what is sexual to one is not to another" would work if we were talking about different poses of females too. But, females are consistently shown in tight outfits, highlighting their rears and their boobs. As Trey pointed out, you can portray Black Widow looking just as cool as her male counterparts without the money shot.

But, the marketing seems to aim at making Black Widow the token sex eye candy, as even the action figures portray her with plunging shirt line and in impractical poses i.e. no weapons or fighting pose, just standing for looks. Perhaps the closest in the two poses I've seen is between Black Widow and Captain America and is shown below:
http://www.sideshowtoy.com/?page_id=448 … ss_300043#
vs
http://www.sideshowtoy.com/?page_id=448 … _featureA#
I'm trying to be fair here, but Black Widow is not the only one who suffers from unfair and sexist portrayals. Characters like Black Cat, Power Girl, even Wonder Woman (for added sexism Wonder Woman's one weakness is for her to be tied up by a man).

I also want to take the time to address idealization, though Dorkman has made great arguments about it. Men are portrayed as being in an idealized:
http://assets.motivationalgenerator.com/hashed_silo_content/90d/84d/b04/resized/tip-top-shape-they-re-in-it-59dfae.jpg
Captain America is stated to be in the constant state of physical perfection, his body the peak of humanity. While there are women who can find this attractive, the actual act of being sexually aroused by the image of Cap is not just a matter of seeing Cap with his shirt off. Despite the poses on romance novels, that is not the foundation of female sexual fantasies. An image is not (generally speaking-there are exceptions of course) enough to kick start female sexual arousal, while for males it is more than enough (Megan Fox is proof enough of this).
Comic book writers have known for years that sex sells (you can thank behaviorists for this insight in to human psychology) and female characters have been drawn as such. Tight fitting costumes may be the norm, but females are shown to be far more provocatively, far more sexualized, than male counterparts.

2,137

(316 replies, posted in Episodes)

I actually first saw Robocop on TV but it must have been cable because it was only moderately censored, i.e. the guy still got his kneecap shot off and screamed for a bit.
I actually think TV censors have the most thankless job. I loved the move "Con Air" in part because the TV censoring of prisoner swearing is pretty hilarious ("My daughter's picture! Where did you put my daughter you dirt eating pencil neck!") It was a an interesting break from the intense violence of the movie. But, the level of creativity these people sometimes need to use its pretty remarkable.

2,138

(473 replies, posted in Episodes)

Zarban wrote:

Simon Kinberg? of X-Men: the Last Stand, Jumper, and XXX: State of the Union?

http://www.zarban.com/pics/panicking-now.jpg

Hey, if Kasdan can help Lucas, I'm sure he can help Kinberg.

2,139

(216 replies, posted in Episodes)

Just  finished the commentary and it is one of the best I have listened to in a while, and that is saying something considering the DiF crowd big_smile
Though, Trey did take the show a little bit with his quips about comic characters and Brian's scrambling to create his own comic books (I want an autographed copy). Overall, it was insightful, with Teague providing technical Joss tidbits and Dorkman's own experiences. It was great, great fun (and Teague, I got your Tito joke and laughed a lot).
While I work on a response regarding the sexism but I do agree with Dorkman and Trey. For now, the article below is food for thought:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-most- … -costumes/

2,140

(316 replies, posted in Episodes)

avatar wrote:

Hextable - Harvard evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker defines "Hextable" as: The album you find in someone else's collection which instantly tells you you could never go out with them. In other words, the deal-breaker.

So you're on a hot date, things are going well, she brings you back to her place, but then you see 'x' in her Blu-Ray collection. You immediately gather your things and take your leave. What's your deal-breaker? Anything by Eddie Murphy? Uwe Boll? Twilight?

My wife is big in to country music and I'm as about as far from country as possible and we are still together big_smile

2,141

(956 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Nice work, Ash. Love the Obi-Wan and Maul with a spider big_smile
http://nerdswagger.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/fcrules.jpg

2,142

(51 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Teague wrote:

We're not even on the normal Wikipedia. A whole DIF Wiki seems greedy.  hmm

Teague, do you not realize that all the cool kids have their own Wiki? I mean, there are wikis for things like "Starfleet Jedi" (just stumbled upon this one, so its fresh in the mind). Even when I played Star Wars Galaxies MMORPG, there was a wiki dedicated to characters from a single server, and their storylines.
So, it sounds weird, but honestly, a DIF wiki wouldn't surprise me.
But, lets at least work on a Wikipedia entry...I mean, that at least could be fun.

2,143

(316 replies, posted in Episodes)

Wow...just wow. I leave for a bit, listen to the episode, come back and there are GIF's all over the place. C-Spin, what have you done, what have you done?
http://i610.photobucket.com/albums/tt184/Hobbes217/CalmDown.gif

On to my unpopular opinions, not flaming intended and no particular order:
-Nero is one of my favorite Trek villains, top 3
-ROTS is one of the worst of the prequels, with AOTC being my favorite.
-Can't stand Guns N' Roses, the Who, Marylin Manson, Korn or Metallica
- I like Lady Gaga's songs, at least some of them
-I can only handle Dr. Who in small doses, though "Blink" is a good episode.
-Riddick is a reluctant hero, not an anti-hero

Um, cannot think of any more, but that gives a good feel for where I am at.

2,144

(956 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Xtroid wrote:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/259962_10151139197022285_367031377_n.jpg

Come on, Nathan, we all know its just a matter of time big_smile

2,145

(473 replies, posted in Episodes)

TheGreg wrote:
fireproof78 wrote:

So, if I am to read you right, you say that each fan must make up their own mind?

Well, that's exactly what Luther was suggesting really. In the end there can be no Pope, commercial interests that conflicted with spiritual purity ultimately undermined Papal authority in Europe, leading Protestants to conclude that every fan, as you say, must make up their own mind.

Alright, draft your 93 theses and have them nailed to my forum by morning wink

2,146

(473 replies, posted in Episodes)

TheGreg wrote:

Fireproof -

I can respect that you believe in the apostolic nature of the Star Wars Papacy, the idea that Lucas ascends to the Holy See, passing the role of Pope on to whoever buys the franchise, but I find the idea repugnant.
Like Luther nailing his protest to the church door we need to reject this claim of authority, instead proposing that each of us has an unmediated relationship with the material, and can accept or reject whatever we like as canon. We need a Star Wars Reformation movement.

Perhaps you are right. I just don't want fans to be disappointed as they hope for Thrawn, Mara Jade or something else that is popular in EU. Those stories just are not binding to the powers that be. I mean, I guess if we nailed our demands to Disney's door, we might get some attention, just not the kind you might be wanting wink

So, if I am to read you right, you say that each fan must make up their own mind?

2,147

(473 replies, posted in Episodes)

TheGreg wrote:

Civil discourse on the internet? I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.

Well, I try, but reserve the right to fly in to an ALL CAPS rage...just saying wink

TheGreg wrote:

Again the important question is not what you believe , so much as why you believe it. I presume you believe that the six are canon because GL says they are? Does that mean that whoever owns LF can decide to change that in the future, or does GL remain the Pope of Star Wars? If the Papacy follows the money, what if LF doesn't even recognize the concept of canon, or if they declare the Ewok Movie and the Christmas Special canon?

Well, there are many fans who just cried in terror at your suggestion big_smile
Canon is a sticky issue-I claim no special insight in what defines it other than published statements, which includes Lucas' idea of the EU being parallel, but not reflecting his intent with the stories i.e. Luke's marriage etc.
Since even published statements are generally inconsistent, my point of view is that whoever is in charge of LF makes the canon, that canon has its origin in a specific authority. "Sola scriptura" is the idea that Scripture alone is what is needed to know the path to salvation and God's word, without man made traditions, or priest interpretations of the scriptures to help the common masses (If you want an interesting argument about it read about the life of William Tyndale-not relevant to this discussion but interesting).
So, based upon the published quotes I've read, the authority was GL, now LF as GL steps aside. His view is of most interest to me so that's what I take for authority. This quote really cemented my own view:

"STARLOG:  The Star Wars Universe is so large and diverse.  Do you ever find yourself confused by the subsidiary material that's in the novels, comics, and other offshoots?

LUCAS:  I don't read that stuff.  I haven't read any of the novels.  I don't know anything about that world.  That's a different world than my world.  But I do try to keep it consistent.  The way I do it now is they have a Star Wars Encyclopedia.  So if I come up with a name or something else, I look it up and see if it has already been used.  When I said [other people] could make their own Star Wars stories, we decided that, like Star Trek, we would have two universes: My universe and then this other one.  They try to make their universe as consistent with mine as possible, but obviously they get enthusiastic and want to go off in other directions."

Obviously, Lucas can make up whatever he wants so take it for what it is worth.

If you want a full, in depth discussion (I warn you, this was all the legaleze and then some they could create from this topic) check out: http://www.canonwars.com/SWCanon2.html
Its overall conclusion is about as muddied as this topic will be as no one gave a crap (see Trey's comments in the original SW commentary) and Lucas was just making a movie. So, his vision changes and things go crazy and now its this monolithic universe that apparently needs rules. So, now the rules are fuzzy, but I personally give GL and LF the canon authority, based upon their own statements.

2,148

(473 replies, posted in Episodes)

Holden wrote:

Confirmed.

And they're off and running...
http://cdn.teamcococdn.com/assets/image/640x/sig:d03f54dbe5eb55486d7f701f46f47f36/buzz-5091a7ecdc74c.jpg

2,149

(473 replies, posted in Episodes)

TheGreg wrote:
fireproof78 wrote:

Yeah, I may be an overly optimistic guy (maybe) but my point was i GL's mind, his movies were the canon, then the EU was part of another canon, and he called it an alternate universe. So, his perspective was that movies were essentially his canon-so, the owner of the franchise, in my opinion (feel free to disagree smile ) can declare it canon. That's my take and perhaps I am wrong.

I see that you're taking the view that canon flows from authority, and that you invest GL with a certain level of authority based on his role in the franchise. I think this is very similar to the situation that you see in the religious community (which is of course the origin of the word), where some people invest the Pope, or some other religious leader or group, with the authority to define which texts are canonical. Obviously there is a lot of disagreement with that, especially within the protestant church, where the ability of a structure or individual to make decisions on behalf of the community is much more controversial.

I think I take the view of some of the more progressive protestant churches that what material is canon is a matter of conscience for the individual. It's not something that an authority figure can dictate. Furthermore, I think it it's possible for an authority figure to loose the moral right to exert authority. I would be more inclined to allow GL a role as Pope of Star Wars if he had shown more commitment to the values and principles that informed the OT.

You make an interesting analogy and your point is well said.
It may be that GL is no longer the Pope of Star Wars (insert random Space Pope joke here) but that does not change his view on canon, that to him, the movies and what he does are it, but the EU and other books are there and that's great, but they do not affect him.
In all honesty, if GL were writing the sequels to the OT Luke would not be married, the Emperor doesn't come back and much of what happens in many beloved books is simply going to be in books. That's not my words-it was from an interview GL did.
So, while SW canon is subjective for the fans, the material used for movies is up to Lucasfilm. They are not bound by EU at all.
I good for-instance of this is Asajj Ventress' species name. Originally conceived as a  Rattaki (yes, I know that) the Nightsisters Trilogy in "The Clone Wars" establishes that both her and Darth Maul's race were the same and from the same planet. That changed what was originally written about the characters.

To further your church analogy a little bit, while Protestants do not recognize the same canon as Catholics or the authority of the Pope, most Protestant denominations have a common thread of "sola Scriptura" scripture alone as their canon. There are disagreements about some traditions and other interpretations, but the authority  of canon is usually consistent.

So, I regard the OT and PT as "canon" with other things being up for interpretation and Lucasfilm being able to decide what ultimately is movie material.

'Tis my two credits smile

2,150

(473 replies, posted in Episodes)

Hansen wrote:

I'm pretty sure seeing all three of them together reprising their iconic roles would make my head explode.

They might announce a director soon, and move forward contract discussions to the the original 3 onboard.
Which...is...crazy!