I would like to question something about the physical portrayal of super heroines.

[Vault101]

I suppose it is charming in that "comics are weird" sort of way, but personally I find it insulting more than anything else, both to myself and the character. I know why the hole is there. They know why the hole is there. Don't try to pretend it has always served some greater purpose. It just feels cheap. To me it adds depth to the character in the same way midichlorians added depth to the Star Wars universe. It explained something that didn't need explaining in an attempt to mask the original purpose of something.

a bit like trying to paint the Asari from Mass Effect as subversive because of all the sci fi lore and a few side jokes in a bar

I know blue alien tits when I see them thankyouverymuch

OT: ah this topic went about as I expected

one thing that really shits me is people describe superheros as "idealised" which is fine...except your telling me the "idealised" version of women are hypersexualised and shoved in fridges

that almost sounds like its a reflection of our society...as made by...I'll give you two guesses

 

[Rebel_Raven]

I dunno, trying to add some fitting symbolic meaning to the boob window is a bit more charming to me than "it is what it is." In a meta sense it might just be trying to explain why the hole is there, but I think it shows that PG has some human feelings towards the hole. The fact that the interpretation can change (or she has more than one reason) adds some more human element to her character. I guess if the character can't believe in the icon, why should we?

I suppose it is charming in that "comics are weird" sort of way, but personally I find it insulting more than anything else, both to myself and the character. I know why the hole is there. They know why the hole is there. Don't try to pretend it has always served some greater purpose. It just feels cheap. To me it adds depth to the character in the same way midichlorians added depth to the Star Wars universe. It explained something that didn't need explaining in an attempt to mask the original purpose of something.

Well, aside from claiming it being symbolic of trying to find her place in things, she does admit that it's a great distraction, too. So, yeah, everyone, including me, knows why the hole is there, yes. I'm not downplaying that she's dressed for attention at all.
PG just doesn't keep it that simple is all, and that's cool with me.

 

[Vault101]

Straight dudes enjoy sexy women. You cannot ever change that, don't even try. But that doesn't mean enjoyment of sexy women is oppression by the evil patriarchy or some shit.

I DON'T CARE WHAT STEAIGHT DUDES LIKE

 

[mecegirl]

You change too many things, they won't support you- and if that means they won't go see the movie, then you've lost a big chunk of your potential revenue stream right there.

No. No you don't loose a big chunk. Comic fans are not that numerous. People that like comic book characters are, but the ones who are really invested in the comics themselves, and thus more likely to care about changes, are not. Comics don't sell nearly that many copies to be that big of a deal. The issues sold rarely top 150,000 copies and that's just for the most popular books. That's nothing compared to the fans of a very popular print book, like say Harry Potter.

If it looks cool enough people other than comic fans will watch it, which is why The Walking Dead has thousands of more tv watchers than comic readers.

Let's take a look, shall we? The readers of the comic are a small number compared to the total potential audience of the movie, true. But they're a huge chunk of the audience who need no further prompting to see the movie beyond "it's a movie of [Insert adapted material here]". It's certainly possible for something to be a lousy adaptation, alienate the core fans who consequently don't see it, and still be a great financial success, I don't dispute that. But that's not the way commercial moviemaking works in this time and place. Every movie made by a major studio is targeted at a specific demographic- you can and certainly will seek to expand beyond that demographic, but if you ignore it entirely, your funders are going to get spooked and pull the plug. If test audiences reject the changes you make to the source material, you're probably going to have to change it. If you don't (and sometimes you can get away with that), the people you've angered aren't going to see it- and likely, neither will their friends, nor any of the other fans they discuss it with (like I said, these tend to be very passionate people).

You don't lose a big chunk of revenue as a direct result, that's true. But you lose a lot of the opening weekend crowd, and lower opening weekends lead to shorter runtimes in theaters. Even if you achieve beloved cult icon status in the home video market, you're still only seeing a fraction of what you could've in theaters. So, yes. Yes, you do lose a big chunk of revenue.

This is basic math. 100,000 or so viewers is a drop in the bucket compared to the millions of non comicbook readers that watch movies and shows. The marketers have an audience in mind when they create these movies. It's who they consider to be the average summer block buster viewer, not the average comic book fan. That's part of why everything, from the themes to the costumes, are so dark.

TV shows are similar. It didn't matter for the old Smallville show what comic fans want. Arrow isn't at all like the Green Arrow of the comics. It gets damn near every thing wrong about Oliver Queen. It still manages to pull in viewers.

You don't have to tell me how passionate comic book readers are. I am one, I also visit comic book focused websites and forums. The bitching never stops when it comes to what the movies get "wrong" (I have my own list of complaints as well) that doesn't stop the mainstream audience from going to the movies. The mainstream audience doesn't give a shit about superman's red undies. They don't know or care about Janet Van Dyne and most likely just shrug off the fact that she's been fridged in the upcoming Antman movie. The list goes on.

 

[Recusant]

This is basic math. 100,000 or so viewers is a drop in the bucket compared to the millions of non comicbook readers that watch movies and shows. The marketers have an audience in mind when they create these movies. It's who they consider to be the average summer block buster viewer, not the average comic book fan. That's part of why everything, from the themes to the costumes, are so dark.

TV shows are similar. It didn't matter for the old Smallville show what comic fans want. Arrow isn't at all like the Green Arrow of the comics. It gets damn near every thing wrong about Oliver Queen. It still manages to pull in viewers.

You don't have to tell me how passionate comic book readers are. I am one, I also visit comic book focused websites and forums. The bitching never stops when it comes to what the movies get "wrong" (I have my own list of complaints as well) that doesn't stop the mainstream audience from going to the movies. The mainstream audience doesn't give a shit about superman's red undies. They don't know or care about Janet Van Dyne and most likely just shrug off the fact that she's been fridged in the upcoming Antman movie. The list goes on.

I think you missed my point. It's not basic math, it's basic economics. To briefly reiterate what I posted above: audiences don't appear out of nowhere. Your best bet to secure viewers for a new adaptation of an existing property is to start with fans of the other mediums it's already in. If you anger them, you'll lose their viewership, the viewership of those they'd've brought in, and, given that they're usually the first in line and your opening weekend is far smaller than what you were expecting, the length of your theatrical run. Can you succeed without them? Sure. But it's a lot less likely, and anyone who ponies up $100 million dollars isn't going to want you to take risks.

More succinctly: one hundred steps isn't much on a journey of a thousand miles, but you're not going to hit the thousand mile mark without them if they're the first hundred.

 

[Parasondox]

Oh please, women enforce bizarre standards of beauty on themselves. Turn on any fashion or dieting show, and chances are it ain't run by a straight dude. Go to any middle school or high school, and the fashion police are almost certainly not going to be the guys. The idea that this standard of beauty is set by men is absurd and you know it.

Straight dudes enjoy sexy women. You cannot ever change that, don't even try. But that doesn't mean enjoyment of sexy women is oppression by the evil patriarchy or some shit.

And anyway, the same "idealized" argument is made for the male characters in similar positions. Muscle tone and strength are two different things, meaning a "cut" looking man isn't necessarily stronger than one that isn't as "cut" looking. I've known a few guys who look very cut, but when actually put to a strength challenge, show that it's all show and no utility, so it could be argued that the super buff "idealized" version of the male video game character is just as ludicrous as the idea that the super buxom and curvy female character is "idealized"

The part that gets me is how women get to have their fun, but men don't. Romance novels are absurdly sexist against men, showing men as puppy dogs with no purpose other than to serve their female masters, but you don't see hordes of dudes protesting how sexist this is, because we let you have your fun, but of course when women do it it's fine, but when men do it, it's oppression, that's pretty much feminism 101, right?

How did this get to feminism anger? NO ONE WILL BE TAKING SEXY WOMEN AWAY FROM YOU, so relax. No one is saying men can't have there fun cause women want fun too. We can all have fun, it's just about admitting that a spade is a spade and not James Spader.

I get it, sexism, both ways, is wrong. Maybe the reason why you don't see hoards of men, including myself, protesting is because us men aren't seen as second class citizens when it comes to the real world and the work environment. Having our pay less than those of the opposite sex get for doing the same work. Also when it comes to expressing our sexuality, it isn't given some harsh movie rating compared to a group or men, in a bar talking about what they did to some "chick" last night. "Women can have sex with multiple partners just like men? GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE!!" That was sarcasm. Who get's judged more on their sexual expression cause we know the answer to that. Having some of the older generation judge, yes judge, women who choose to pants/trousers and not a skirt and "a womens place should be at home pushing out babies". Yes, believe it or not, some people still think like that. Or to just put it simply, us men DON'T have to jump through so many hoops in order to get recognition for work, achievements and expressing ourselves compared to women.

Yes men do get the wrong end of the stick at times, but just stop with the whole "they are taking our fun away" rants.

 

[Parasondox]

Oh please, for every pay gap for women, there's a death/incarceration/graduation gap for men, for every old dude that expects a woman to "know her place is in the kitchen", there's an old woman who expects a young man to risk his life if she's ever in danger. I'd stop with the "they're taking away our fun" rants if this weren't a video game website that would be a lot more fun without all this pseudo-feminist bullshit. Australia DID ban GTA, so i'll stop with the "they're taking our fun away" rants once they stop, well, taking our fun away.

First of all, Wow!!

Secondly, GTA hasn't been banned. A few stores decided not to sell the game. You can still order it.

Thirdly, did you just put gender gaps between men and women with pay AND death?

Fourthly, Jesus man! How far are your views going on how "Women are taking men's fun away".

 

[Parasondox]

So your first and fourth points were absolutely pointless. Try to be more succinct in your posts please.

GTA was banned based on a petition, by women, to not sell it. I don't care whatsoever if you don't think that's a "ban", and have no desire to get into some BS terminology argument, then call "restricting a person's right to do something when it doesn't affect you" whatever you want. Point is it's not as easy to get because someone didn't like the content and decided not buying it just wasn't enough.

As for the 3rd post, you pointed out that the gender pay gap was a sign that "women are treated as 2nd class citizens", i simply pointed out an advantage women have, to show you it's not as one-sided as tumblr would have you believe.

It's not a ban. I assume you are from Australia because only two retailers aren't selling the game. Two retailers isn't the whole of Australia. Are you still able to buy or download the game in Australia? Also, how many "women" signed the petition? Didn't men sign it too? Wasn't the final decision to take the game away from those two retailers down to a MALE boss of the company. You can say he was pressured but remember, it doesn't even have to give a damn about the petition in the first place. He's not the government.

I don't have a Tumblr account nor do I go on it. This is going back to my point about those who feel offended if anyone says or does something to their favourite pass time. You can still have your fun and no one is taking it away from you. The sale of GTA is not outlawed.

I am just going to spit it out. Do you have a strong disliking to women who you assume "meddle in your fun free time" or do you just dislike the fact that more attention is on women's rights and issue as a whole and you assume it will harm yours, as a male?