The Fallouts are still fresher and richer

[Nathan82]

I know you guys don't usually like to close threads and let people dig their own hole, but this might be the exception as @Almateria has said. This may very well devolve into incel central and no one should have time for that retarded bunch of bollocks

[InKal]

imo

Elen Ripley, mmmmm....Elen Ripley... so well written. ;pp

Max Rockatansky the original, fantastic anti-hero. also well written.

Max Hardy. so so, not great, not terrible.

Imperator CRINGE Furiosa CRINGE Cringe criNgE Cringe but 7/10 anyway, we'll bang, ok?

 

and yeah, close the thread coz someone has different opionion...n/c

and here is bonus from my current politicaly correct BG1EE run 

sry for not half-orc!! thats racisst I know...

[Almateria]

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Edited June 1, 2022 by Almateria

[The_Baffled_King]

11 hours ago, InThePineways said:

Write in whatever manner you like. If an internet forum conversation stops being fun, there's no reason to continue it [snip] It sounds like you stopped having fun.

I'd say the difficulty is that the topics in question are interesting, but they're serious, so while there's fun in the more abstract sense of exercising one's brain, that's as far as it gets. Sure, when I quoted this post of yours, in my post here, I definitely had fun by quoting only the atrocious phrasing at the end of that post - which really undermined the wider point that you were making (and bigging up Ripley, 'cos she's awesome), but the only subsequent fun part was discussing Aliens.

I only did that because I was sure you would come up with a concise way of describing your position more accurately, which you did, in this post here. I'm sure no-one can complain that "fighting outside your weight class" (as you put it) is in any way intrinsic to one's views of women, because boxing, for example, has been using weight classes for many, many years, to ensure that male boxers with mismatched physical characteristics don't have to fight each other.

But, it's a slippery slope, and one interesting point can lead to another, and before you know it there's two men on an internet forum discussing female gender roles in the context of societal change towards greater equality for women - which is obviously a very dangerous place to be because, y'know, a key part of greater equality for women is men listening to what women have to say instead of speaking for them.

So, in my post here, once I typed "(a) I'm tired; and (b) let's not have two men (I'm guessing) discussing female gender roles in depth", I very probably should have taken my own hint, and stopped. Or, towards the end of the post, when I wrote "I feel like I've just sat a test. Next time, I will stop at the Black Widow/Batman part", I still had the opportunity to not post what I'd written. But inertia is a thing, and I was tired, so of course I ended up staying up even later to edit my post.

And to InThePineways, specifically - it's my own fault for taking the test. Thanks for taking my hint, when I did not, and refocusing on film.

11 hours ago, InThePineways said:

The crux of it is this: Are female characters in modern movies believable?

In fairness, the crux of it definitely seemed to me to be "are fight scenes involving female characters in modern action movies believeable". I am absolutely sure that is what we began discussing; I'm sure that any fair reading of the thread would show that; and I'm sure I wouldn't have touched this topic with a bargepole if it was really as described in your unfortunate phrasing in the above post that I quoted would seem to imply.

10 hours ago, InThePineways said:

Some of the moves in your clip from the Avengers film would require more strength than Scarlett Johansson looks capable of [snip] that makes this a moot point

I think it's a shame that you didn't push this point more, because it seemed like your strongest one. I understood that it tied into this post of yours (with the photos): put simply, it seemed that you were pointing out that a female actor playing a part in an action film will generally not put on as much additional muscle mass for an action role (when compared to their usual physique) as a male actor playing a part in an action film (when compared to their usual physique). And that led you to this:

17 hours ago, InThePineways said:

I think it comes down to the way we naturally perceive men and women. [snip] So -- if we humans have a deeply ingrained perception of what it means to look like or to be a real woman, then why do we cast these dainty, pretty women in roles they wouldn't be capable of performing?

Which I clearly understood as an expansion of your original point, which is that there are clear physical differences between the sexes, and these differences are actually sharpened by societal pressures on how women "should" look, which has a knock-on effect on your ability to suspend your disbelief in action films which, to quote myself from earlier, are so poorly-written that they require "a slight female to unnaccountably defeat a muscular man in a test of strength". Because that is a bit weird, isn't it? And suspension of disbelief is a weird, subjective thing. I mean, I've met many people who simply can't abide fantasy as a genre, due to the lack of realism.

10 hours ago, InThePineways said:

In Black Widow [snip] (how many people talk trash about marvel movies?).

I wonder if your reaction to Aliens compared to the Avengers is colouring your view of the female characters therein. There's a lot more in the Marvel universe requiring suspension of disbelief - all the more so, in fact, because it occurs in our time, rather than in the future. And you're not keen on the films anyway. Does it make a difference? Maybe. Maybe not. Just minimally, I'd say that Black Widow is a great character in the middle of the Avengers run when paired with Captain America. But let's not go into that.

10 hours ago, InThePineways said:

In Alien, the setting and circumstances are pure fiction

Aliens is actually a far more realistic film than the Marvel films, in my view. It requires you to accept: (a) these aliens exist; and (b) we're in the future (but we still have vaguely realistic-seeming military tech. Once that's done, then you're good to go. Also, you like the film, unlike the Avengers films.

As for your point about the motif regarding Newt, yes, that's absolutely right (Ripley was the heroine of a previous film without Newt, but that was a horror). It is pretty blatantly used to juxtapose Ripley and Newt with the alien queen and its eggs - Ripley reaches Newt, and then uses a flamethrower to threaten the eggs, leading the alien queen to get it's warrior drones to back away from Ripley, whom they had surrounded.

However, the mother-child motif is subordinate to a far more important one, in my view - one that also stretches "back to our pre-human ancestors": overcoming your fear. Ripley, after the events of Alien, is traumatised (at least in the colloquial sense). In Aliens, she is in the company of self-confident, gung-ho, professional soldiers. Yet, when Aliens attack, it all goes to hell. The marines are being slaughtered. In the APC, frozen through some combination of fear and incompetence, Lieutenant Gorman does nothing. So, Ripley steps up - and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Newt at that point. I mean, I'm not keen on action films, but Aliens is fucking brilliant, and Ripley is an amazing heroine.

[The_Baffled_King]

I suppose that the problem with letting members form their own opinions about other users, instead of having rules, is that the policy is dependent on the ability of the members to form rational opinions in the absence of rules.

4 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

I’m not sure I get it… those are all genderless descriptions. What about those things is “male?” 

Okay, subtledoctor. Do you really want it explained? I understand, and I can do so - no need to wait for InThePineways.

But I think you went wrong at the start. See, there is a stark difference between what you quoted:

13 hours ago, InThePineways said:

In Black Widow, we have a badass warrior, a killer, a fighter for justice, etc.... a male role

And what was actually written by InThePineways:

13 hours ago, InThePineways said:

In Black Widow, we have a badass warrior, a killer, a fighter for justice, etc.... a male role, but with the genders swapped. This isn't a reality ever experienced by human kind, except maybe in a handful of examples from modern times of female soldiers and snipers which were made possible by modern weaponry.

 

[Emphasis mine]

I think if you weren't unaccountably limiting the scope of your quote - removing the support for InThePineways' entire argument - then perhaps you would understand a little better, and perhaps it wouldn't lead astray other posters who read only your selective quote. You see, Ripley had a gun, or a flamethrower (as indeed did Vasquez, who was another badass action female in Aliens), and that helped her defeat adversaries - the eponymous Aliens - that were physically more powerful than her. Of course, we could say that, in the name of female equality, we should pretend that Ripley should have been able to go toe to toe with aliens without a gun, but that would be pretty stupid, because there are massive differences in physique between the average alien and the average Ellen Ripley. This why aliens, and Ellen Ripleys, have separate categories for sports and athletics.

I can assure you that the role of "killer" is in fact a stereotypically male role. I'm sure there are statistics out there to prove the point - I would be extremely surprised if comparing murder convictions of females to the size of the female general population, as opposed to comparing murder convictions of males to the size of the male general population, would not reveal a striking disparity in numbers.

The really interesting thing, though, is that those male convictions for murder would include among them a considerable number of men convicted of murdering women. If we must assert that women and men are homogenuous blobs of humanity, with no distinct physical characteristics, I don't know why there aren't more stories of women successfully fending off the (male) human stains that attack them. And I'm also surprised that you don't seem to know this, subtledoctor, because men killing women for gender-related reasons is an absolutely massive problem in societies worldwide. I mean, you seemed very socially conscious in the "ducks" thread, so it just seems weird.

[temnix]

18 hours ago, The Artisan said:

But the fact that you do shit like use BEGIN on existing dialog files to completely override them with no consideration for other mods makes it extremely difficult for me to appreciate you attempting to shove your poorly executed vision down other peoples throats.

I don't know where you found that, you are probably imagining it, but could it be that I overwrote those NPC's dialogues and replaced them with my own ideas of how things should proceed? For instance, in one version they might leave the area, in another they might give a quest. Those renditions are not compatible. You can't watch two movies at once, you have to choose. But, as I said, that's probably something you made up. And @Almateria, this is a board for conversation unrelated to modding, which is what's unrolling here. If you are calling for this thread to be closed because someone is voicing opinions you don't like, then I'll have to be really rude and say it's your mouth that needs to close.

Edit: and I want to add this. If the Mad Max line of movies or the Fallouts make some statements about the nature of people, the sexes, their roles and places - which I don't really believe, but contemporary mores are always reflected - and that causes controversy, that is a good thing. It is a sign of relevance and vitality. Baldur's Gate never raises any issues. It is soft like candy for babies. Yes, despite talk about women being counterparts, almost all speaking NPC in the first game are male, the women mostly play housewife roles, except for the occasional sorceress or thief, the "Amazons," and that represents the ideas about gender roles current in the 1990s. But nothing is really made of that, because the Forgotten Realms is a PG-rated setting for teens. The "post-apocalyptic" "genre" (have to put everything in quotes) is much better rooted in a complex reality, which is why I said in the beginning that the Fallouts still ring true while the fantasy IE games show impressive artistic skills but as worlds they are a thing of the past - except Torment, always. Because there is a torment in that one!

Edited June 1, 2022 by temnix

[The_Baffled_King]

4 hours ago, Almateria said:

Between the original post, and the guy whose posting arc took a swerve from "Fury Road is bad" to "all women are worse than men and having a female lead role is political correctness". This thread sucks so much. Can we close this.

[Emphasis mine]

I challenge you to prove that the posts in this thread before your above post contain any evidence of what I have emphasised above in bold. You have to do so in a way (a) that depends on the actual words used; (b) that depends on the natural and ordinary meaning of those words, and how they would be interpreted by a reasonable person, acting in a reasonable fashion; and (c) that doesn't rely entirely on people with the "Modder" tag being able to say whatever hateful nonsense they please about people without those tags.

That is how things work in the real world, Almateria. It's okay to run this place differently. It's not okay to pretend that it's normal, that it's rational, or that it's fair.

4 hours ago, Almateria said:

Between the original post, and the guy whose posting arc took a swerve from "Fury Road is bad" to "all women are worse than men and having a female lead role is political correctness". This thread sucks so much. Can we close this 

[Emphasis mine]

I also challenge you to prove that the posts in this thread before your above post prove of what I have emphasised above in bold, using the same criteria that I outlined earlier in this post. Plainly you fail at the first hurdle, because the discussion between InThePineways and I very clearly proceeded on the basis of action movies, and physical characteristics relating to action scenes, and any potential gender-related considerations referred to with a shorthand "political correctness" depended very specifically on the genre of film and the specific type of scenes therein. That is enough to undercut your so-called argument entirely by itself.

20 hours ago, The_Baffled_King said:

Pretty much. If the weight classes are too far apart, either recast the fighters, or tweak the rules of the fight so it plays out in a more believable way. More recently, Black Widow made for a convincing kick-arse female fighter, within the confines of her genre (I haven't seen her own film yet, mind). If ever she did a little more than she should be able to, well, Hawkeye always seemed the worse offender - and either way, it's necessary for both so they can keep up with the thunder god and what have you.

What gives me pause for thought is that action films can often be ridiculous throughout, anyway... So I guess it depends. I can 100% get behind the notion that a film of the type that we're talking about can suffer for what one might suspect to be politically correct reasons, to use the phrasing of the other poster. Fury Road? I ain't seen it.

Finally, I challenge you to prove, using the same criteria that I outlined earlier in this post, that my post here (quoted above) contains any evidence that I believe anything even remotely like "all women are worse than men and having a female lead role is political correctness". The above post is the only one of mine containing the words "politically correct", or any other such variation on the terms. I would not even want to converse with anyone who held such a view,

4 hours ago, Nathan82 said:

I know you guys don't usually like to close threads and let people dig their own hole, but this might be the exception as @Almateria has said. This may very well devolve into incel central and no one should have time for that retarded bunch of bollocks

Okay, Nathan82. I think that any fair and decent person would clarify exactly whom they were accusing, or not accusing, of harbouring opinions that could lead this thread to "devolve into incel central", which I most certainly agree is a retarded bunch of bollocks. There weren't many of us here - you name names.

For the record: although I find women attractive, I have never used a sexually explicit or suggestive image of any kind in any computer game I have ever played in my entire life. I consider InKal's image in poor taste, but I consider his posting of it in this thread what you have to put up with if you somehow believe that the Gibberlings3 forum is such a special, shining beacon of morality that, rather than follow the example of pretty much anywhere else on the civilized internet, you instead follow the example of 4chan.

I guess if you had rules, it would make it all the more obvious that this community allows Modders, and regulars, to say whatever they want to anyone who doesn't drink their very specific brand of Kool Aid.

[The_Baffled_King]

Finally, thank you to everyone on here with whom I have had polite interactions, or interactions that have fit normal standards of fairness, decency, and observable reality.

That is in fact every single person on here, other than 5 specific people - so do not think I am tarring you all with the same brush. Far from it.

Then again, I don't know what many of you think, and silence is complicity. If you agree with the actions of Almateria, please say so, that I may know you for what you are.

[CamDawg]

In the olden days, people would ignore topics with blatant attention whoring.

I'm going to temporarily lock the topic for a few days while we all reflect upon the wisdom of our elders.