On My Character Graveyard
Sometimes I look at ny character graveyard and all the original and fan characters I’ve stopped drawing out thinking about, and I think good. Your story was terrible and your design was shit.
Sometimes I look at ny character graveyard and all the original and fan characters I’ve stopped drawing out thinking about, and I think good. Your story was terrible and your design was shit.
so today this guy told me he didn’t like my new boots and i was like “well… that’s good for you but i’m the one wearing them so i don’t really care what you think…” and he goes “aren’t we why girls wear that kind of stuff?”
I feel like im listening to Sansa Stark talking about women in videogames and i want to cry because this is everything that i feel.
This is my problem with the imagery of putting Zelda in a tunic or Peach in overalls or the Zelda reboot by Aaron Diaz. Which isn’t to say these are with ill intentions or there is something wrong with women wearing male apparel, but with Sarkeesian and Diaz comes the implication that women acting masculine are of more worth, that if they’re in a dress and are acting feminine, that that is an issue that needs fixing.
It’s the same sort of mind set that people see Ygritte as a better character than Sansa Stark. Ygritte, a wonderful character mind you, being a warrior in animal pelts who lives out in the wild among wild men while Sansa Stark, another wonderful character, being a young girl who wanted nothing more than to grow up and be a queen in a near fairy tale sense who has constantly had her hopes and dreams shattered and taken away yet has had the smarts to survive living with Joffrey for years. If Ygritte were in her position (and vice versa), she’d most certainly be dead.
Good counter point! It’s a sort of video that makes me happy Tropes vs Women exists because we get this kind of discussion out of it.
That this is being discussed and a differening opinion was presented fairly was important.
I get tired of seeing women reduced to damseled objects but they’re not always useless after they’ve been kidnapped. I remember in the Paper Mario for Game Cube when Bowser gets Peach onto his space station, between the main chapters of the game are playable moments with Peach as she investigates her situation and frees herself from her initial room. I never finished the game, so I don’t how far she gets, but she’s not entirely defeated.
I agree with aspects of what both of these women have presented. And even with the vitriol that Anita has received some people are talking about video games in a different way from before. It’s a start, and it shows people outside of the interest that there’s more to the gaming community than just playing. The content of the games and how they reflect society are just as important.
I keep seeing discussions about sexuality, most recently people pissed at discussions about food analogies and asexuality.
This is how I feel when people tell me about their sexuality…
David Denby on “The Great Gatsby”: “Luhrmann’s vulgarity is designed to win over the young audience, and it suggests that he’s less a filmmaker than a music-video director with endless resources and a stunning absence of taste.” http://nyr.kr/1414CXu
I’m not planning on seeing The Great Gatsby, but it’s from a weird aesthithics point of view. Regal Cinemas does this thing where they show clips from trailers and have the cast talk about the movie, they did that shit for at least 6 months before Les Miserables, so I’m over these hybrid trailers, but I saw one for Gatsby and it didn’t do anything for me. The glitz and techno glam of New York as shown in the trailer feels wrong. It’s like TGG takes place in the Las Vegas version of New York. The digitized chaos as described in this review feels all wrong.
I like the version of TGG that I have in my head and the bit of design I’ve seen from the movie is too loud. Things can be understated to be appreciated.
That said, if any of you want so see it, enjoy. To each their own, which is a mantra I try to remember. I don’t feel like I’m going to get anything from this interpretation of the book so I don’t want to see it, but do it up. It’s a free country and not everyone has to like the same thing.
The other day I told to a friend I didn’t like Anne Hathaway? Apparently there are people who super hate her, her face, her acting, her dieting for a role, her working, her existence it seems. I read this and I was like “am I being sexist” then I remembered “nope, I just kind of find her boring, except in interviews” but I also don’t hate her, I just don’t like her. I have the most rampant apathy unless I really hate something (like peta, fuck those guys).
I like actors who do something weird, daring. cutting off your hair shouldn’t be considered “daring”, acting in a critically questionable movie or tv show is daring. I like seeing actors make a movie choice that’s weird because it’s going to be fun, not because they’re strategically plotting out their careers every thing they act in. critical darlings may be good, but where is the personality in their choices? Are they being type cast after an early success, what are they doing to show they have range and that they’re not a one trick pony?
It took 2 sittings over the course of 7 days, one Sunday then the following Sunday when I felt I had the time to read all fo Superman: Brithright. I enjoyed it well enough. I really don’t know many specifics about narratives with Superman and prior to reading this I had some of the same problems with the character that other people generally mention:
He’s too good, where is the character drama, he’s a one trick positive pony
He has too many powers and writers just add shit as necessary
He just never seemed interesting.
His arch-enemy is just a human, that doesn’t seem fair.
Do all of his powers work all the time or is it selective? Like the hearing and the x-ray vision
When I first got into comics i picked up a collection of Alan Moore stories that had some Superman stories in it, I wasn’t too keen on him but I read the stories because i paid for them. It only makes sense. I kind of got into the drama but it still didn’t do much for me.
After reading Birthright I know what makes Superman comics interesting and it’s not Superman. It will probably never be Superman for me, he just can’t be the interesting part because he isn’t interesting. Clark Kent is the interesting part.
Superman Birthright is less about Superman and more about Clark Kent dealing with being Superman and having to deal with it. The human connection he attempts to make are interesting, his inability to make these connections and his hiding his alien self make him interesting. As a characters, Superman shows up to save the day and gets criticized for it by other people but Clark Kent has to deal with people and is working to make himself disappear so people don’t link him to Supes. There aren’t many interactions for Superman with anyone because he’s too busy saving the day then leaving before the military or the press have the time to figure out who he is. All of his character building is based out of who Clark is.
Thinking about those Moore stories I read they were about Superman and not Clark so they were boring. One of them it was Superman’s ‘birthday’ and Wonder Woman, Batman and Robin went to the Fortress of Solitude to celebrate but some alien villain sent a robot or something and I forgot what happened. Supes was angsting about belonging, i think, I haven’t read it in about 4 years. That story is forgettable to me because it’s him at the top and dealing with being at the top. I remember another one where Lois knew Clark was Superman, they were married but their life sucked. Or it was a dream caused by something from the robot, I really can’t remember.
I’m more interested in the human component of Superman comics than him being a hero. What makes him a flawed character, how do his powers and his true heritage interfere with his life? Maybe that’s why if I just picked up a comic and he was fighting aliens or other super-beings I’d be bored because i feel there’s a (human) connection missing.
I know I keep saying ‘human connection’ but I mean an emotion investment in the character and his life. What makes him feel and what makes him care other than his ability to feel life. How does that work?
Funny is growing up the 90s i didn’t watch Superman: The Animated Series, I just didn’t like the art style do I didn’t want to give it a chance. It is possibly the most mainstream opportunity I had to get to know the character as a kid. I loved Batman: The Animated Series - I guess the biggest factor then is my brothers didn’t watch it as often. There was just something that seemed dull about the character that I never really wanted to give him a chance.
Birthright was interesting but i think because it spent so much time showing how Clark has to deal with being Superman more than it showed Superman having to deal with being Superman. i don’t think many of my judgements have been changed but if I hear of a well written Superman trade coming out i might give it a once over and decide if I want to buy it instead of always walking past and buying something else.
I guess it’s also good to say, I don’t read many superhero comics. I have some of the staples of Batman (Killing Joke, Dark Knight etc) I have a few Avengers, a small number of Iron Man, one or two Daredevil, Green Arrow and a smattering of others. I mostly read independent comics, one off narratives, or a non superhero series. I have Y: The Last Man, The Gaiman run of Sandman, Preacher, the Boys, Sin City and some other long-form comics publications but a lot of one offs. I think i like knowing that the story has an end or that I don’t feel I have to buy 20 books across 5 series to get the full narrative. It’s nice to know there is only one continuity, if someone dies they’re not going to be revived or be alive in a different plane of existence, i think it’s nice to know that closure is a possibility and a probability.
That’s dumb. I may have no interest in meth but I’m not against weed and I’m intrigued by hallucinogens. Also, a lot of scientists/nerds created drugs by mistake and then were like ‘this shit is awesome’
Can we talk about the nonsense of caring about which news outlet first reports a big piece of news? I’m not talking about a genuine scoop—a report that wouldn’t have otherwise come to light—but about news that we’re all eventually going to find out anyway. Who Mitt Romney selects to be his running-mate, for instance, or whether the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate.
I know I’m often out-of-the-loop when it comes to journalism norms and conventions, but this one honestly confounds me. Has any publication ever received a Pulitzer for being the first to report a major announcement? Is there some secret reward at stake—free cookies for a year? A trip to Hawaii? Do colleagues buy you a drink to congratulate you on beating the other networks by ten seconds?
Because if this is just about bragging rights, it needs to stop. Now. And not just because it can lead to some outlets rushing to report incorrect information, as CNN and FOX did with the recent Supreme Court decision on health care reform. But because the race to be first is no longer just a feature of news coverage but often the main factor driving it.
Amy Sullivan, The New Republic. Who Reported It First? Who Cares?
With the Supreme Court about to announce their decision on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act our (mostly cable) media were chomping at the bit to be first out of the gate with some BREAKING NEWS.
CNN, as we know, fell flat on its face. It’s been struck down, they reported incorrectly. Their amplification machine went into overdrive with banner headlines on CNN.com and posts on social media until Wolf Blitzer — in purely Wolf Blitzer moment — helpfully illuminated us all.
“It’s getting a little more complicated,” he said.
As Sullivan points out: “His remark, of course, referred to the network’s own coverage. The court’s decision couldn’t have gotten more complicated because it was final, set down on paper.”
Sullivan’s article is well worth the read. Yes, there’s some importance to speed, she writes, but the media focuses too much on getting it first on too many stories where getting it first really isn’t important. Like, say, a Supreme Court announcement that everyone will hear about when it’s actually announced.
If the topic interests you, check out her follow-up. And if your journo-geekery runs real deep, head over to SCOTUSblog where Tom Goldstein walks 7,000 plus words through a minute by minute account of how CNN and Fox got their reporting wrong, and who the whole media scrum works in cases such as this.(via futurejournalismproject)
I felt justified in my beliefs if for no other reason than no one actually told me I was wrong. Instead, men like Bill Bennett and Newt Gingrich hailed me as the voice for my generation and a hope for America.
But then, earlier this week, Politico released an interview in which I announced I wasn’t a conservative anymore — and the proverbial crap hit the fan. Since then, I have been treated by the political right with all the maturity of schoolyard bullies.
Read on to the rest of this, I feel this is on par with seeing photos of children at any political rally, they don’t understand what they’re being used to represent. And it’s humorous which makes for more entertaining reading.
I like how well articulated he is in these videos and I’m enjoying hearing his opinion on things. This is the same guy who did the video in my last link about Feminist Frequency.
I don’t want to call the families of adopted children too sensitive for this reaction, my younger sister was adopted into my family, but I kind of feel as if they’re missing the point. With the pull quote used here it misses the set up for the joke and who the joke is on. Iit detracts from the end of Thor and earlier moments in The Avengers when Thor knowing Loki is adopted runs around just saying ‘he’s my brother’ and not ‘he’s my adopted brother’. Which when compared to Loki’s opinion of the entire thing they’re not related and Thor needs to die/leave him alone.
I kind of agree with the other points addressed that people are prescribing one thing to Whedon and the movie that they disagree with and not commenting on some of the larger overarching ideas that the characters expound on for more of the narrative.
Everybody is outraged – OUTRAGED! – over language hurled against women these last few weeks. First it was Rush Limbaugh. Then Bill Maher. Now Louis C.K. has resigned from hosting the Radio and TV Correspondent’s Dinner after Greta Van Susteren threatened a boycott because during the last election Louis called Sarah Palin a cunt.
From Greta Van Susteren’s blog: “he changed his mind less than 24 hours after I called for a boycott. I assume many others jumped on the call for the boycott and thus he made the right decision. We did it together.”
Sincere congratulations to Ms. Van Susteren. You asked for his removal and you got it. The lesson: words have consequences. His words, your words, everybody’s words. Mr. Rogers would be thrilled.
No word yet on Ms. Van Susteren success in her boycott of Rush Limbaugh’s show because no such boycott exists. Why the selective outrage? Because, as always, these things have far less to do with what was said and more to do with who said them. Like the words themselves, they have to be viewed in context.
The difference between what Louis said, and what Rush said is this: in his apology, Rush made a point of saying that his personal attacks on Ms. Fluke, were not intended “as a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.”
In other words, when he specifically called Sandra Fluke a “slut,” “a prostitute,” and encouraged her to post sex videos of herself online so he could watch, it was not personal. It was, therefore, general. Which I, for one, believe because it fits perfectly within the larger context of Rush Limbaugh’s twenty-plus years of ad hominem attacks on “feminazis” and gratuitous comments about all female journalists as “news babes.”
With Louis, his insult was actually the opposite: it was a highly personal attack. The target of his insult, Sarah Palin, so infuriated him that he felt the need to call her the very worst name he could think of. His insult referred to a specific woman at a specific time and place.
Did Louis cross the line? Yeah. Did Bill Maher? Yeah. Have I at times? Yeah. Has Greta Van Susteren ever crossed the line? Have you, in your personal conversations? Yeah. We all have. The difference is context. Do a Google search of the horrible shit Rush Limbaugh has said about women. Then do a search on Louis C.K. See if it’s comparable.
Louis did use those words, and opted to drop out of an incestuous Washington dinner party rather than make himself the focus of this recurring debate on language. But the reason more people don’t give a shit about what Louis C.K. said is not because of a liberal bias – does anybody even know what Louis C.K.’s politics are, aside from hating Sarah Palin (a sentiment shared by many Republicans)?– but because the charge of misogyny just doesn’t hold a lot of water with Louis.
With Rush it does. Regular listeners to Rush Limbaugh’s program, as I have been for years, are not surprised when he finds himself lambasted for his petulance, name-calling, and race baiting. It’s what he does. He’s kind of a cunt that way.
I think it is interesting that people in the public eye are held up to such different standards, I mean, people do say offensive things on the daily but it gets swept under the rug. It is interesting who has the power over words and how people react. I apologetically curse and say defamatory things all the time on my blogs, but I’m a no one and people never retort, so it is nice being a nobody spouting my opinion in my own words on the Internet all the time. I have called many people cunts in real life and online, but I have also questioned it’s use, but rarely when people are called it because they probably are. I mean, why isn’t it as offensive to call someone a cock or a dick but cunt is the worst most vile-ist word?
Anywho, I think that MIB brings up some interesting thoughts on language, it’s power and the strength of the speaker with how people respond.
So, despite the mega-bummer-storm of the recent Gary Friedrich super-screwing/Before Watchmen/Avengers movie boycott/Walking Dead profits controversy, I’ve tried to stay positive about the losing battle that is being a comics fan, but a couple things have really stuck in my craw the last few weeks. It really started with this tweet from Brian Michael Bendis:
just fyi- any review of anything that mentions internet reaction or uses the pronoun I more than twice is lazy, amateur crap.— BRIAN MICHAEL BENDIS (@BRIANMBENDIS) February 15, 2012
Ugh. Super asinine, right? As a person who (sort of) reviews comics and (sort of) knows a lot of people who do it very well, I took umbrage at the fact that Mr. Bendis set such arbitrary boundaries for criticism in order for him to consider it valid.
So of course I shot my mouth off.
This is an interesting discussion on criticism. I also happen to spend a lot of time criticism things here and on blogger, but reviews are steeped in opinion. I mean, sharing a review is just artfully writing your own opinion on something else while taking the time to be a bit objective about it so people with different opinions might get something useful out of it.