|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 13, 2019 6:23:14 GMT
it wouldn't be happening if those (epithet)s weren't getting uppity. more pointedly, look at how our "leadership" behaves. THEY set the b at confrontationally petulant, and their followers are eager to mimic them. Inverse: Imagine that you're on a public social media platform. You note that you felt the effects work of the most recent blockbuster movie you saw wasn't up to par. The guy in charge of the digital effects department that worked on the film finds out about what you said, tracks you down, and calls you things you haven't heard since 4th grade. You'd be upset, wouldn't you? This is actually what's going on in comic books right now. Various creative talents have been going after critics and customers alike, as have their die-hard fans & supporters. In fact, the final straw that started Comicsgate as we know it was three industry pros getting caught scheming to have a particularly vocal critic of the industry arrested if he showed up at a particular convention; they figured that since he was a military veteran it would be easy for them to provoke him into taking a swing at them, at which point they could call the cops, have him thrown in jail, and effectively silence him. Yeah. I can't imagine it, because I have never had anything even remotely close to that happen to me. heck, I've even said I thought a character was wasted as a token minority, and not been attacked for it. I have, however, seen people posting on online reviews that black panther was no good because all the heroes were black, and I've seen people posting on online media that Captian Marvel was no good because their star said something feministish. and I've seen people say the third round of star wars movies are no good because Rey couldn't have known how to pilot a starship or do melee combat from fending for herself and working for a starship reseller on a desert planet. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Sept 13, 2019 6:40:45 GMT
I can't imagine it, because I have never had anything even remotely close to that happen to me. Count yourself lucky. I actually got gay-bashed by some "woke" types who were offended by the fact that I gave "Ender's Game" largely positive reviews. The "woke" crowd wanted the movie to fail because of Orson Scott Card, and so by giving it positive marks I was going against the party line and therefore had to be taken out of action. I think you can imagine their tears when the 2016 "Ghostbusters" movie tanked. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 13, 2019 6:44:07 GMT
That is the narrative the mainstream media and the 'creatives' want to push along with the 'toxic fanbase/fanboy' story. Look closer however and you see that the concerns tend not to be about the gender or ethnicity of the characters themselves. Rather concerns about what promoting such things says of the 'writing' and 'story' quality. No one cared that Sisko was a black man on DS9 for example, and indeed back in the day this was advertised simply as something the audience might notice and as an aside noting that he was the first black lead on a Trek Series. You saw the same thing with Voyager. Back then you could state that you didn't like DS9 or Voyager, heck you could state you didn't like those characters without being accused of being sexist or racist. In fact in the case of Janeway the audience who didn't like that character noted that they either disliked the writing or just the performance. You see the same complaints today about Micheal Bernham (STD) and Rey (Star Wars). But now you are accused of being sexist and racist. Frankly a VERY small number of people are actually concerned with the gender or ethnicity of main characters unless for some reason it wouldn't fit or that is basically the only real defining trait of that character and the stories in question. {Update rather than posting again to answer a question above;} The film was Steel, based on the DC character of the same name who appeared after the Death of Superman. Also note; Studios themselves are not stupid enough to use the 'toxic/sexist/racist fan' argument directly, at least in public. They are however doing nothing to curb the 'creatives' who are working on their projects from doing that. Thus we have the 'creatives' on Doctor Who, Star Drek and Star Bores defending their utter lack of actual talent by claiming that all arguments against them are sexist and/or racist in nature. For Star Wars this is moronic, as it ignores the simple logic that if the Wars audience had been that sexist and racist they would never have gone to see Awakens. A film in which it was made rather clear that the two lead characters would be a white woman and a black man. For Star Drek it ignores that NONE of the complaints have anything to do with the gender or race of the lead plank of wood and everything to do with bad writing. The same doesn't quite hold for Doctor Who, as there were those who were against a female Doctor from the start. However a closer look both at the over all comments and the actual viewer figure trends indicate that the vast majority of that fan base were tuning in to give her a chance. But then dropped away due to the writing being bad. This is the attitude in film and TV, but as noted it exists in an even worse form in comics. Both DC and Marvel have seen sales utterly tank to the point that both are in danger of going under* Rather than course correct companies are doubling down on this attitude, and in the case of the MCU there is a general feeling that it is done. It isn't going to happen overnight, but the results will be seen in the next few years unless Marvel changes its attitude and stops treating their own customers like walking wallets who will suck up any old crap they churn out. (*Note; Be wary of the 'sales' figures as these tend to be copies SHIPPED not copies SOLD. Marvel, for example, inflates its figures by shipping comics to libraries and to companies like the (now defunct) Lootbox. One person in the know pointed out that Marvel was claiming one issue of Spider-Man 'sold' a million copies....which would mean that every comic book shop in the US would have had to sell several thousand copies each.) yes, I'm sure if I look in the places you want me to look I will see what you want me to see. the fact of the matter is I have better things to do than crawl through social media looking for childish personal spats to report on. therefore what I see is the people who are yelling the most prolifically and the loudest, and the most publicly, and that is the people complaining about there being too many minorities in entertainment, people complaining about having to be politically correct, and people complaining that writers are focusing too much on what minorities are interested in. Luke was a whiny farmboy from a desert planet. people had no problem with the idea of him learning to block blaster bolts in a single session, fight stormtroopers with a blaster, shoot down TIE fighters with a quadmount, or dogfight a starfighter with no formal training. Rey was a self sufficient scavenger from a desert planet who also worked part time in a used starship lot. the fact that she could correct bad repairs on the falcon, pilot it without crashing hard enough to stop it, and survive against a walking temper tantrum with a lightsaber made her an unacceptable mary sue. Star Wars has always been an epic story line with bad dialogue, unrealistic characters, and cutting edge special effects. deal with it. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 13, 2019 6:54:34 GMT
I can't imagine it, because I have never had anything even remotely close to that happen to me. Count yourself lucky. I actually got gay-bashed by some "woke" types who were offended by the fact that I gave "Ender's Game" largely positive reviews. The "woke" crowd wanted the movie to fail because of Orson Scott Card, and so by giving it positive marks I was going against the party line and therefore had to be taken out of action. I think you can imagine their tears when the 2016 "Ghostbusters" movie tanked. are you saying people were accusing you of being gay? because that is what "gay bashing" involves. If you'll recall, I dinged Ender's game for missing the point of the book. so pause and imagine for a moment that you liked ender's game because you like Orson Scott Card's books, and the people attacking you were doing it because they saw you as supporting the author over the flawed screenplay. or imagine you like Alita because you are an anime fan, and people start talking about how a cyborg body designed to be a little girl can't possibly beat a cyborg designed for melee combat, and how a rocket powered axe is totally ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Sept 13, 2019 6:55:15 GMT
yes, I'm sure if I look in the places you want me to look I will see what you want me to see. I'm an entertainment writer, so I have to dive into this nonsense daily in order to understand the controversy du jour and be ready to summarize it for my readers. For example, consider the 2016 "Ghostbusters" film. A single-digit percentage of people who responded negatively to the first film trailer on YouTube were, yes, bad actors. The rest were focused on the shoddy effects work, the cringe-worthy attempts at humor, and the lackluster acting. Thing is, the powers-that-be chose to focus on the single-digit percentage of people, accuse everyone who was critical of being sexist, and allowed both director Paul Feig and some of the cast to freely go about social media smearing and slandering everyone in sight. The internet being the internet, you blast someone they're going to blast you right back. Cue me in the middle of all of this having to explain to my readers why there were so many people being so astoundingly immature about what by all rights was a C-list reboot that would have simply vanished into the aether like so many other C-list reboots if people hadn't made it a hill to die on. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Sept 13, 2019 6:58:57 GMT
are you saying people were accusing you of being gay? because that is what "gay bashing" involves. Yep. I was accused of being a closet case who was suppressing it for the sake of appearances. ...And then when they saw my noting that "The Saratov Approach" had gotten good reviews from a variety of critics, they further accused me of having an agenda to what I did and didn't review. (It wouldn't open locally, so I had to wait three years before I finally got it on DVD... at which point I harshed it for the sloppy camera work.) Nope. I was a closet homosexual, Card was a closet homosexual, the town I live in was 100% closet homosexuals because the annual German cuisine festival was called "Sausage Fest", et cetra. They hated Card for being Card, and by extension were hating on anyone and anything that expressed positive support. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 13, 2019 7:10:44 GMT
yes, I'm sure if I look in the places you want me to look I will see what you want me to see. I'm an entertainment writer, so I have to dive into this nonsense daily in order to understand the controversy du jour and be ready to summarize it for my readers. For example, consider the 2016 "Ghostbusters" film. A single-digit percentage of people who responded negatively to the first film trailer on YouTube were, yes, bad actors. The rest were focused on the shoddy effects work, the cringe-worthy attempts at humor, and the lackluster acting. Thing is, the powers-that-be chose to focus on the single-digit percentage of people, accuse everyone who was critical of being sexist, and allowed both director Paul Feig and some of the cast to freely go about social media smearing and slandering everyone in sight. The internet being the internet, you blast someone they're going to blast you right back. Cue me in the middle of all of this having to explain to my readers why there were so many people being so astoundingly immature about what by all rights was a C-list reboot that would have simply vanished into the aether like so many other C-list reboots if people hadn't made it a hill to die on. it was a c-list reboot of a c-list movie. the definition of "cult classic" is "a movie people like despite it being bad" again, what the world that DOESN'T dive into the nonsense saw was everybody attacking Paul Feig. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 13, 2019 7:15:05 GMT
are you saying people were accusing you of being gay? because that is what "gay bashing" involves. Yep. I was accused of being a closet case who was suppressing it for the sake of appearances. ...And then when they saw my noting that "The Saratov Approach" had gotten good reviews from a variety of critics, they further accused me of having an agenda to what I did and didn't review. (It wouldn't open locally, so I had to wait three years before I finally got it on DVD... at which point I harshed it for the sloppy camera work.) Nope. I was a closet homosexual, Card was a closet homosexual, the town I live in was 100% closet homosexuals because the annual German cuisine festival was called "Sausage Fest", et cetra. They hated Card for being Card, and by extension were hating on anyone and anything that expressed positive support. and how is that any different from you hating Brie Larson for being Brie Larson? |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 13, 2019 7:26:44 GMT
I looked it up: there were 2600 direct sale comic book stores in the US in 2016, based on one distributor's statement. that doesn't count newsstands and other stores that sell comics in addition to other merchandise. (until the late 80s, I'd never even been in a "comic book store.") so even inf that spider man comic had ONLY been released to direct sale comic stores, we're talking 400 copies per store, not 1000. and looking up the story, it was a HALF million, not a million. so that's 200 per store, IF it wasn't shipped to what I will call "casual sellers" which I can't see marvel doing. www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/04/05/marvels-amazing-spider-man-1-hits-over-500000-orde.aspxand as I recall, most buyers of the LAST spider man #1 I know of bought at least two copies - one as an investment and one to read. (I have three) so I guess the next question is, do you believe comic stores have less than a hundred customers? |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 13, 2019 15:58:31 GMT
Both Rey and Luke being able to use blasters is logical, as they grew up in locations where they would have no doubt been trained and experienced in their use for defense and possibly hunting for food. The analagy would be early settlers in the US who likewise would have grown up using firearms.
Luke sort of learnt to block blaster bolts, having been shown to have failed on screen with his annoyance indicating that being hit in the leg wasn't the first time. This was under the direct instruction of an actual Jedi Master. He doesn't use the Force again until the end of that film, and then to passively help him hit his target. In Empire he is unable to actively use the force to pull his lightsabre to him first time out, is unable to raise his X-Wing even after some time training with Yoda, another Jedi Master, and is utterly outclassed by Vader. He's not seen deflecting blaster bolts again until Jedi, and he's so good he still gets shot in the back of his hand.
Rey attempts to use mind control and succeeds, without any training what-so-ever, is able to force-pull a lightsabre away from Kylo first time out and then holds her own against him in the fight. (To be fair other than her using the force in the way she did she IS facing an opponent who was badly injured by Chewie and had been fighting someone else right before their clash.)
Piloting wise. Luke is established to be a piot of some skill early on, he's playing with a model airspeeder in the garage and you can actually see the real one in the background when he's doing so. (Trivia; The power converters he was intending to go and get were for his airspeeder). He mentions not being such a bad pilot himself when first meeting Han, he mentions having hunted Wamp Rats in his T-16 (the airspeeeder) in Beggers Canyon back home during the briefing for the death star attack and (in the expanded special edition version) Bigg's meantions Luke being one of the best pilots on the outer rim.
However you are correct that he had no formal training, but miss that this is shown. Lukes performance in the Death Star battle is notable because even before he faces Vader he almost dies twice. When he attacks the startions guns he gets far too close to his target and nearly gets himself killed as a result, showing his inexperience. Then when the Tie fighters turn up he almost gets himself killed again due to his inability to out manovoure a single Tie and has to be saved by Wedge.
So yes, he's a good pilot and a good shot but his inexperience shows.
Compare to Rey. That she might know how to fly the Falcon isn't in itself a problem. That she can somehow outfly two Tie fighters in the Falcon is a different matter entirely.
The difference here is that Lucas, for all his flaws, gave his characters logical skill sets and limitations so no one is perfect. Han is a better pilot that Luke - Wedge is actually a better pilot than Luke as he's the only person to take part in both Death Star Battles and survive. Leia is actually a better shot with a blaster than Luke, and possibly Han judging from the number of shots we see her make in three films and the number of hits she manages.
This makes Luke a better character overall. Sure, he's powerful on his own by Jedi but at the end of the day no matter how much power he has on his own he's nothing without help from others. Be that Wedge saving his life in New Hope or Vader saving him in Jedi.
Rey on the other hand is 'perfect' and instead of realising and needing the help of those around her gains skills and abilities 'because'. She is never 'tested' the way Luke was and that is why she is a Mary-Sue. As indeed are Captain Marvel and Micheal Burham on STD. All three lack anything like a heroes journey starting and ending in the same place of being 'perfect' and 'always right'.
In the case of Brie Larson the problem is Brie Larson. The oft quoted 'No interested in the opinion of some 40 year old white dude' comment was made in relation to A Wrinkle in Time, and even before seeing her speech understood that she was most likely referencing that the film wasn't aimed at that demographic - yes I will and HAVE called out people for not giving context to quotes.
Then I saw the speech.
I can understand exactly what she was trying to say, and indeed I was correct about the context because she actually SAYS 'It wasn't meant for them' right after the quoted part. I could even agree with the general sentiment overall.
However she came across badly to put it mildly and managed to make me actively dislike her. Seeing her in other appearaces hasn't changed this, she comes across as self-important and divorced from reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 13, 2019 18:29:18 GMT
Both Rey and Luke being able to use blasters is logical, as they grew up in locations where they would have no doubt been trained and experienced in their use for defense and possibly hunting for food. The analagy would be early settlers in the US who likewise would have grown up using firearms. Luke sort of learnt to block blaster bolts, having been shown to have failed on screen with his annoyance indicating that being hit in the leg wasn't the first time. This was under the direct instruction of an actual Jedi Master. He doesn't use the Force again until the end of that film, and then to passively help him hit his target. In Empire he is unable to actively use the force to pull his lightsabre to him first time out, is unable to raise his X-Wing even after some time training with Yoda, another Jedi Master, and is utterly outclassed by Vader. He's not seen deflecting blaster bolts again until Jedi, and he's so good he still gets shot in the back of his hand. Rey attempts to use mind control and succeeds, without any training what-so-ever, is able to force-pull a lightsabre away from Kylo first time out and then holds her own against him in the fight. (To be fair other than her using the force in the way she did she IS facing an opponent who was badly injured by Chewie and had been fighting someone else right before their clash.) Piloting wise. Luke is established to be a piot of some skill early on, he's playing with a model airspeeder in the garage and you can actually see the real one in the background when he's doing so. (Trivia; The power converters he was intending to go and get were for his airspeeder). He mentions not being such a bad pilot himself when first meeting Han, he mentions having hunted Wamp Rats in his T-16 (the airspeeeder) in Beggers Canyon back home during the briefing for the death star attack and (in the expanded special edition version) Bigg's meantions Luke being one of the best pilots on the outer rim. However you are correct that he had no formal training, but miss that this is shown. Lukes performance in the Death Star battle is notable because even before he faces Vader he almost dies twice. When he attacks the startions guns he gets far too close to his target and nearly gets himself killed as a result, showing his inexperience. Then when the Tie fighters turn up he almost gets himself killed again due to his inability to out manovoure a single Tie and has to be saved by Wedge. So yes, he's a good pilot and a good shot but his inexperience shows. Compare to Rey. That she might know how to fly the Falcon isn't in itself a problem. That she can somehow outfly two Tie fighters in the Falcon is a different matter entirely. The difference here is that Lucas, for all his flaws, gave his characters logical skill sets and limitations so no one is perfect. Han is a better pilot that Luke - Wedge is actually a better pilot than Luke as he's the only person to take part in both Death Star Battles and survive. Leia is actually a better shot with a blaster than Luke, and possibly Han judging from the number of shots we see her make in three films and the number of hits she manages. This makes Luke a better character overall. Sure, he's powerful on his own by Jedi but at the end of the day no matter how much power he has on his own he's nothing without help from others. Be that Wedge saving his life in New Hope or Vader saving him in Jedi. Rey on the other hand is 'perfect' and instead of realising and needing the help of those around her gains skills and abilities 'because'. She is never 'tested' the way Luke was and that is why she is a Mary-Sue. As indeed are Captain Marvel and Micheal Burham on STD. All three lack anything like a heroes journey starting and ending in the same place of being 'perfect' and 'always right'. In the case of Brie Larson the problem is Brie Larson. The oft quoted 'No interested in the opinion of some 40 year old white dude' comment was made in relation to A Wrinkle in Time, and even before seeing her speech understood that she was most likely referencing that the film wasn't aimed at that demographic - yes I will and HAVE called out people for not giving context to quotes. Then I saw the speech. I can understand exactly what she was trying to say, and indeed I was correct about the context because she actually SAYS 'It wasn't meant for them' right after the quoted part. I could even agree with the general sentiment overall. However she came across badly to put it mildly and managed to make me actively dislike her. Seeing her in other appearaces hasn't changed this, she comes across as self-important and divorced from reality. HOW many time was it "perfect pilot" rey hit the ground before she got the falcon flying? and how much is it to her credit for knowing the terrain well enough to outfly TIE fighters in an environment they were specifically NOT designed to fly in? AND SHE WAS SAVED BY HAVING A GUNNER. her knowledge of what was wrong with the falcon CAME FROM HAVING WORKED ON THE STARSHIP LOT. yeah, she mind controlled a stormtrooper trained to not think independently without training, she managed to outfight a guy who was used to winning by being the only guy with a lightsaber, who basically stopped his own training way earlier than Luke left Yoda. (and BTW, in the books, Luke returned to Dagobah and finished his training between empire strikes back and Jedi) the fact the lightsaber went to her instead of Kylo is related to the statement already made that the lightsaber was calling to her. and yeah - injured, poorly trained, undisciplined, and NOT TRYING TO KILL HER. - and that staff she carried on her planet wasn't just a walking stick. HOW many flashback scenes in Captain Marvel showed Danvers pushing herself to be as good as "the guys?" and yes, she WAS infused with massive powers and was a totally unbalanced character. her hero journey was having been indoctrinated into being a bad guy and slowly learning everything she had been taught was a lie. and you know who else is self important? all of us. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Sept 13, 2019 18:30:33 GMT
In the case of Brie Larson the problem is Brie Larson. The oft quoted 'No interested in the opinion of some 40 year old white dude' comment was made in relation to A Wrinkle in Time, and even before seeing her speech understood that she was most likely referencing that the film wasn't aimed at that demographic - yes I will and HAVE called out people for not giving context to quotes. Then I saw the speech. I can understand exactly what she was trying to say, and indeed I was correct about the context because she actually SAYS 'It wasn't meant for them' right after the quoted part. I could even agree with the general sentiment overall. However she came across badly to put it mildly and managed to make me actively dislike her. Seeing her in other appearaces hasn't changed this, she comes across as self-important and divorced from reality. Pretty much. Larson is, simply put, a mediocre actress at best and a toxic individual at worst. Hence why so many people are getting tired of her and want to see someone else in the role. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Sept 13, 2019 18:35:46 GMT
HOW many flashback scenes in Captain Marvel showed Danvers pushing herself to be as good as "the guys?" and yes, she WAS infused with massive powers and was a totally unbalanced character. her hero journey was having been indoctrinated into being a bad guy and slowly learning everything she had been taught was a lie. and you know who else is self important? all of us. The flashback scenes were specifically structured to be "everyone who was pushing against her was doing so because of her gender". Thing is... 1. In the go-kart incident, we can see that she was driving too aggressively and that the accident she caused because of it could have severely injured herself and anyone near where her cart landed. Her father was wrong for the "girls can't drive!" angle, but correct in bawling her out for her recklessness. 2. In the basic training incident, drill sergeants are supposed to weed out the weak and so a recruit of either gender who botched the obstacle course like she did would have been laid into. This leaves the sexist pilot and her training with the Kree as not having any larger context. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 13, 2019 19:30:07 GMT
HOW many flashback scenes in Captain Marvel showed Danvers pushing herself to be as good as "the guys?" and yes, she WAS infused with massive powers and was a totally unbalanced character. her hero journey was having been indoctrinated into being a bad guy and slowly learning everything she had been taught was a lie. and you know who else is self important? all of us. The flashback scenes were specifically structured to be "everyone who was pushing against her was doing so because of her gender". Thing is... 1. In the go-kart incident, we can see that she was driving too aggressively and that the accident she caused because of it could have severely injured herself and anyone near where her cart landed. Her father was wrong for the "girls can't drive!" angle, but correct in bawling her out for her recklessness. 2. In the basic training incident, drill sergeants are supposed to weed out the weak and so a recruit of either gender who botched the obstacle course like she did would have been laid into. This leaves the sexist pilot and her training with the Kree as not having any larger context. so what you're saying is she spent her whole youth overcompensating for a toxic male environment, and therefore being in an environment with the Kree where she was being indoctrinated into not accessing her powers with a "you're not good enough" has no context. |
|
|
|
Post by WhutScreenName on Sept 13, 2019 20:39:08 GMT
The flashback scenes were specifically structured to be "everyone who was pushing against her was doing so because of her gender". Thing is... 1. In the go-kart incident, we can see that she was driving too aggressively and that the accident she caused because of it could have severely injured herself and anyone near where her cart landed. Her father was wrong for the "girls can't drive!" angle, but correct in bawling her out for her recklessness. 2. In the basic training incident, drill sergeants are supposed to weed out the weak and so a recruit of either gender who botched the obstacle course like she did would have been laid into. This leaves the sexist pilot and her training with the Kree as not having any larger context. so what you're saying is she spent her whole youth overcompensating for a toxic male environment, and therefore being in an environment with the Kree where she was being indoctrinated into not accessing her powers with a "you're not good enough" has no context. More like it was a specific decision to ONLY show scenes where she was beat down for being a female in a male's world, with them pushing an agenda rather than a good plot device. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Sept 14, 2019 1:57:50 GMT
so what you're saying is she spent her whole youth overcompensating for a toxic male environment, and therefore being in an environment with the Kree where she was being indoctrinated into not accessing her powers with a "you're not good enough" has no context. More like it was a specific decision to ONLY show scenes where she was beat down for being a female in a male's world, with them pushing an agenda rather than a good plot device. ...And even then, the bit with the drill instructor wasn't as "sexist" as they were trying to depict it as because a drill will tear into anyone regardless of gender. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 14, 2019 5:14:24 GMT
so what you're saying is she spent her whole youth overcompensating for a toxic male environment, and therefore being in an environment with the Kree where she was being indoctrinated into not accessing her powers with a "you're not good enough" has no context. More like it was a specific decision to ONLY show scenes where she was beat down for being a female in a male's world, with them pushing an agenda rather than a good plot device. whereas Steve Rodgers continually being beat down for being a shrimp was a good plot device? |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 14, 2019 5:18:56 GMT
More like it was a specific decision to ONLY show scenes where she was beat down for being a female in a male's world, with them pushing an agenda rather than a good plot device. ...And even then, the bit with the drill instructor wasn't as "sexist" as they were trying to depict it as because a drill will tear into anyone regardless of gender. so they were pushing a sexist agenda because they showed a scene where she was attacked for failure regardless of gender. what about the scene where she crashed a bicycle jump. was that pushing a sexist agenda, too? |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Sept 14, 2019 6:15:24 GMT
More like it was a specific decision to ONLY show scenes where she was beat down for being a female in a male's world, with them pushing an agenda rather than a good plot device. whereas Steve Rodgers continually being beat down for being a shrimp was a good plot device? Welcome to military life. Drill instructors are tasked with ensuring that each and every recruit they are put in charge of meets established guidelines for discipline, professional knowledge, and physical fitness. A key part of that is figuring out whether or not individual recruits have what it takes, and that in turn requires the drills to push the recruits to their absolute limits to see who breaks under pressure and who rises to the challenge. From a standpoint of physical aptitude, Steve didn't cut it. He was small, weak, and had too many medical conditions. In real life, if he had tried to deploy into a combat zone he'd have been a liability. However, his time in training forced him to develop his natural cunning and redouble his courage. This goes back to the key scene with the flagpole. Steve was the only one of the recruits to realize that if he pulled the bolt at the base of the pole assembly the pole would topple over and he could just pick up the flag after the pole hit the ground. None of the other people in his training unit even *thought* of doing that. It was this, Steve thinking the problem through and finding an unorthodox solution, that convinced everyone he was the proper choice to receive the serum. But yeah - Over on Facebook there's a group called ASMDSS. The bulk of the posts there are stories people have about their military service time, particularly their time in basic training and what took place between them and the drills. If you can get access to the group, read the stories that are there and you'll see what things can be like. This is everything from "hardcore methods meant to ensure people learn their stuff" to "very creative punishments to deal with habitual screw-ups" to "what happens when even a drill knows something is morally screwed up". One story, for example, involves a situation where a blizzard caused all of the training grounds to be closed for the day. As the guy recounting it notes, he and the rest of his group of recruits were on a bus back to the barracks and expecting something warm waiting for them. Instead, they discovered the hard way that the real plan for the day involved several other drills doing an inspection of their area while they were away training. They'd been gone just long enough for the drills to finish the inspection, and in the process discovered quite a few infractions. By the time the collective mass of drills were done with the recruits, the recruits' collective physical exertion (much of it from assorted punishments) had raised the temperature of the barracks by such an extent that condensation was forming on the windows. Another story involved a drill literally drop-kicking a recruit who was handling his rifle in such a careless fashion as to put the rest of the unit in danger of life and limb. It was the most expedient way for the drill to separate the recruit from the rifle in question before a disaster happened. And so on. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 14, 2019 19:31:27 GMT
whereas Steve Rodgers continually being beat down for being a shrimp was a good plot device? Welcome to military life. Drill instructors are tasked with ensuring that each and every recruit they are put in charge of meets established guidelines for discipline, professional knowledge, and physical fitness. A key part of that is figuring out whether or not individual recruits have what it takes, and that in turn requires the drills to push the recruits to their absolute limits to see who breaks under pressure and who rises to the challenge. From a standpoint of physical aptitude, Steve didn't cut it. He was small, weak, and had too many medical conditions. In real life, if he had tried to deploy into a combat zone he'd have been a liability. However, his time in training forced him to develop his natural cunning and redouble his courage. This goes back to the key scene with the flagpole. Steve was the only one of the recruits to realize that if he pulled the bolt at the base of the pole assembly the pole would topple over and he could just pick up the flag after the pole hit the ground. None of the other people in his training unit even *thought* of doing that. It was this, Steve thinking the problem through and finding an unorthodox solution, that convinced everyone he was the proper choice to receive the serum. But yeah - Over on Facebook there's a group called ASMDSS. The bulk of the posts there are stories people have about their military service time, particularly their time in basic training and what took place between them and the drills. If you can get access to the group, read the stories that are there and you'll see what things can be like. This is everything from "hardcore methods meant to ensure people learn their stuff" to "very creative punishments to deal with habitual screw-ups" to "what happens when even a drill knows something is morally screwed up". One story, for example, involves a situation where a blizzard caused all of the training grounds to be closed for the day. As the guy recounting it notes, he and the rest of his group of recruits were on a bus back to the barracks and expecting something warm waiting for them. Instead, they discovered the hard way that the real plan for the day involved several other drills doing an inspection of their area while they were away training. They'd been gone just long enough for the drills to finish the inspection, and in the process discovered quite a few infractions. By the time the collective mass of drills were done with the recruits, the recruits' collective physical exertion (much of it from assorted punishments) had raised the temperature of the barracks by such an extent that condensation was forming on the windows. Another story involved a drill literally drop-kicking a recruit who was handling his rifle in such a careless fashion as to put the rest of the unit in danger of life and limb. It was the most expedient way for the drill to separate the recruit from the rifle in question before a disaster happened. And so on. two words: internet famous. |
|
