what the **** are you talking about

Wookie06 was a recruiter.

If war is a drug, then Wookie06 was a drug pusher. I wouldn't have ever expected Wookie06 to think highly of the people side of the movie. Most people don't enjoy being compared unfavorably to that sort of thing (whether they can consciously acknowledge it or not).

I bet a tobacco lobbyist has lots of complaints about rivet counts in Thank You for Smoking, too.

They might think it's a funny film. I don't and I like the people that put it together. Much of the military got quite classless during the post 9/11 and Iraq war build up. Perhaps partially due to the lowered standards (duh). That movie sort of lampooned their behavior. It didn't click with me, I was really disappointed actually.

How many appreciate film as a medium? How the hell should I know? What, none because none of them liked it it?

And, yes, I was selected to serve as a recruiter and I conducted myself in a manner that doesn't bother my conscience. Hell, I even tried to help set Antony straight when his recruiter was obviously lying to him and telling him to hide things so he could join. But I can also tell you that I saw some of the worst conduct by noncommissioned officers imaginable and signed sworn statements about it despite pathetic attempts to blackmail me. So, yeah, if we want to talk about recruiting, we can talk about recruiting.

I like that movie, but if anyone who didn't realize that everything that Nick Naylor told you about how he operates didn't also apply to the move itself, they learned nothing at all. Sophistry isn't restricted to people you don't like, or even to people who were wrong. The takeaway should be that you have to think through what people are really saying rather than letting them manipulate your feelings.

I watched Season 1 of True Detective. I don't get the overwhelming hype that show had. Looks like all of their budget went to hiring Hollywood A-list actors, so the performances are good. But the rest is meh. Rust is "I'm a badass genius cop professional fighter and also a huge edgelord". Despite that I couldn't find his character compelling. Never found the case all that compelling and for it to end in a very generic shooting scene was a letdown. None of the philosophical language I heard was that great.

I just don't get it. Like there wasn't anything overtly awful, but nothing to get all that excited about. Am I missing something?

If WWII was a TV show, the story we know would be maybe a couple seasons. Then the next season would be like "And then in 1951 a race of sUpEr NaZiS rose from the ashes and have taken over Australia! Time to reassemble the heroes!!" and it would be horrible and boring.

Episodic writing is bad, I wish people wouldn't cling to dead series for so long.

Executives just need to commit to a defined story arc instead of milking it when it gets successful.

That's essentially the story that was playing in Winston Churchill's head in the early 1950s, except the super Nazis weren't super Nazis but were England's (soon-to-be former) colonial holdings emancipating themselves from the British Empire.

I'd totally watch a series about the emerging post-war international order. It's super fascinating stuff, and given all the glorification of the "post-war international liberal order" I'm surprised that there haven't been more efforts to tell the story of those years. The crisis that occurred in British-US relations in the early 1950s was quite surprising; the UK almost swung over to the communist side. But yeah, very little about that how that order emerged followed a path of inevitability.

Yuuup.



That would involve changing the subject of the show, something writers are not wont to do. I guess you could say that kind of happened with Breaking Bad -> Better Call Saul.

Watching Neon Genesis Evangelion, and wtf why is anime so pervy. So far 75% of the episodes have shown underwear (of a 14 year old no less), virtually every episode has shots framed between the legs of female characters (of 14 year olds at times), and plenty of "lol boys will be boys" attitude directed at school boys taking photos of girls in their underwear (14 years old again!) like it's not abhorrent behavior.

But hey, at least the show has the bravery to criticize a guy for forcefully kissing a woman who's asking him to stop and then tells her her words don't matter.

In any case, if y'all didn't know Japan has a real problem with candid sexual photography, so much so that phones must have an audible camera shutter sound to be sold in Japan to curtail upskirt shots. It's more than a little disturbing when this kind of behavior is totally normalized in a show directed at preteens.

Like ****, I try not to be one of those people always commenting on how problematic things are but lots of anime is seriously ****ed up and clearly reinforces these bad behaviors..

You think that's bad, wait until you get to the last two episodes

Oh no

I just started rewatching it as well. I interpreted it as mostly stemming from Shinji's (and the other kids as well) puberty. Everything is sexual for him and he has no idea how to handle it. Only Asuka is worse, projecting her own sexuality onto everyone around her.
The kids are thrown into war just when their hormones are most out of whack and somehow expected to deal with it all. They are all absolutely messed up and the insecurities of the adults doesn't make it any better.

Then again, it is a 90s anime. And I remember almost every preview of the next episode ending with "Fanservice! Fanservice! Fanservice!"

So I thought that saying "But your lips didn't say no. Your lips or your words... Which one should I trust?" after forcefully kissing a woman would be signs that you're a POS, but apparently the character is like one of the main characters we're supposed to care about?

Yeah, it's not that any portrayal of sexuality at that age is immediately bad, but it's something which should be tread carefully. However, Neon Genesis seems to romp more than tiptoe. Then of course much of the sexuality which isn't related to the characters (aka, fan service) is seriously problematic.

It's a shame, too, because much of the rest of the show is pretty good. The Angels are a compelling enemy, the Eva and how the children relate to them and deal with their position is interesting, the characters are surprisingly appreciable. Though I find Asuka and tsundere (any -dere really) obnoxious. Because she feels more like a male fantasy character at times than a real person. And she has a crush on Mr. Rape, which I can see happening but do we really need to engage pedo loli fantasies for weirdos even more?

True story: I played DND with a guy who considered Asuka his waifu. After finally watching the show, a bit more about who he is makes sense.

Alright, finished it. It's definitely a good show. The second half is much better, more focused and focused on the right stuff. An altered version of the show without the fan service would be very nice indeed.

Kay, blog over.

End of Evangelion: WTF??

The best thing about this is that End of Evangelion was created because the regular series ending was too WTF for most viewers.

Well he sure shifted gears on that one. Kind of a "**** you" to the audience, and that's in more than one way.

Now that I've had time to think on it, I think Neon Genesis Evangelion is a pretty good example of why "subverting expectations" is usually a bad idea. It seems that the show sets out to do that, ultimately subvert most anime tropes. Right? Mechs were a big topic in anime in the 80s from what I understand. NGE starts out as a typical-looking mech anime. (spoilers inc if anyone plants on seeing it). Then you find out they aren't mechs, they're living. Further, they're not just living, they're the result of horrifying and grotesque experimentation on humans (Unit 731?). It takes something "cool" and turns it into an extremely macabre, horrifying, and unpleasant reality in the show. Then you have the anime tropes, like Asuka being tsundere, weird sexual jokes and so forth. Ultimately it develops to where you realize everyone's sexuality has developed out of some kind of trauma. Retrospectively I appreciate what it's doing a bit more.

But did it work? Did people really pick up on that Asuka's sexual aggressiveness is a result of her trauma? I don't think so, actually. As I mentioned someone I knew considered her a "waifu", and the characters are frequently sexualized. And that's the issue, it's the same reason why Kurt Cobain wrote "Rape Me" after "Polly". People won't realize you should not be sexualizing these characters. Despite being being clear with Asuka's sense of self-hatred and distaste for her own actions in the second, viewers still only recall the cringey fan service of the first half. This kind of subversion always fails. So while I get it, the fan service does ultimately serve kind of a narrative point, on most people it seemed to have failed. And even then it could have been toned the **** down and it still would have worked as a message.

The creator's disgust with how fans related to the characters is made pretty literal in End of Evangelion when Shinji masturbates over a comatose Asuka and then calls himself the scum of the earth. Do you get it yet, weirdos?

Anyway, good show, despite the subversion failing in some ways to the dumber viewers.

I'm about halfway through season 3 of Stranger Things, and so far I'm pretty bored. The characterization is paper thin, in some scenes the color grading is way off (like lips look purple? wtf). Plot seems meandering and going nowhere, seems they lacked any and all creativity past season 1 and they're just treading water. It's more slapstick, inducing eyerolls.

I don’t think I can muster the enthusiasm to watch it. My Netflix opened up to an ad for the show that began with an old 80s record player and the mere sight of it... gah, the 80s nostalgia is so worn out by now.

Yeah season 2 was definitely a big step down in quality.

Finished season 3. If you did not like season 2, you will not like it. There's nothing particularly memorable and it's worn deep into its cliches. The 80s nostalgia is definitely tedious. I was relieved when it ended, that's how bored I felt.

OTOH, Dark season 2 was incredible and I'd encourage anyone to watch it. It may not be palatable to everyone since it's very "German" as a show (no sappy emotions, characters feel more emotionally distant), but the aesthetic is great and the story is very interesting.

I see that Netflix picked up Designated Survivor. We enjoyed the show while it aired on ABC (via Hulu). I couldn't put my finger on it but seeing the trailer I realized exactly what it was the show was missing. Gay black sex! Meh, I'll probably still watch it.

IKR, I hate seeing blacks and gays too.

And of course it's now TV-MA so the show can no longer be a family show in our house so that sucks.

Why can't your family watch gay black sex?

hits too close to home

it's icky and they're black

i guess it depends on the scene though, regardless of orientation or race

It's the TV-MA rating that makes the show no longer family friendly. We're perfectly accustomed to seeing gay relationships forced into every show we watch now.



I kind of figured they had multiple reasons for including this in the show although odd for it to be in the trailer. I know members of Massassi have complained about black men being homophobic so presumably it's meant to offend black people and white supremacists. I'm not in either category nor a stereotypical Trump supporter so I'm good.



They were just rolling around in the sack together from what I could tell. Unless one of them was a really fit and flat chested female. I didn't watch that close.

Apparently the ratings change is mostly for language but it's still annoying although Catching Fire proved to me that TV-14 just means there's probably no full frontal.

Really? I don't see it THAT often. Then again, I don't watch a lot of stuff. I don't see myself ever being bothered by it, though. I mean you imply some level of disapproval for gay relationships on TV with your choice of words. I actually thought you've pointed out in the past that you're NOT a conservative Christian, which would have explained the attitude, but maybe I remember wrong.

Heh are we really at a place culturally where you’re not allowed to be made uncomfortable by certain sexual acts?

Yes, you must enjoy any and all sexuality you're shown and you're a bad evil person if you don't.

We went from “there’s something wrong with you if you don’t think that’s icky” to “there’s something wrong with you if you do think that’s icky.” Like, maybe there’s a way that doesn’t involve telling other people what they should feel?

Care to clarify without sarcasm?

Not if it gets dragged out into a 3 page dialogue

I'm teasing Wookie for saying something which could be construed as racist, though I don't think he meant it, and teasing Reverend Jones for asking a silly "lol how far will the s jay dubyas go?" question. I don't think I have a real opinion on any of this.

If anything it was meant to be intentionally inflammatory with two things primarily in my mind. One, a good show picked up by Netflix has been unnecessarily made more provocative and, two, a years old discussion here where some complained of black homophobia. If the TV-MA rating is primarily for language I may reconsider it's suitability for our son.

My first post on the subject was facetious, but my follow-up was my genuine perspective (note that Wookie switched the topic from depicting sex to having gay relationships "forced into" TV in general). I think getting bothered by that is certainly allowed—it's definitely not something that I would disallow anyone—but it struck me as a conservative Christian thing to be concerned about. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with being a conservative Christian, either, no matter how little it aligns with my own worldview. I do see how my post may have read as a judgment of such an opinion, though. I suppose, like I said, that I don't see it as often or as gratuitously as to take it for any kind of problem with TV programming. Maybe there's disproportionate representation, but that applies to a bunch of things, and gay relationships haven't bothered me any more than some of the other things. And to me, whether a TV relationship is gay or straight, it can function equally in terms of a plot device.

As for gay black sex, I think it's perfectly reasonable to follow the guidelines and not intentionally subject your young child to explicit content that they may be too young to take in without all sorts of confusion. Not that I think seeing any depiction of gay black sex destroys souls or anything, I mean there's a lot of wiggle room for what type of content that may indicate.