War Room Lounge v53: Short Notice

How do you sleep?


  • Total voters
    47
Status
Not open for further replies.
There really should have been some bets on the first candidate to formally back out

tenor.gif
 
Ok, which one of you is the gentleman in this video? Looks like a lovechild of Shannon Sharpe and Chris Tucker.

 
No one likes him, its not a shock that he bounced. I did think @Fawlty's dream girl Williamson would go first though.
I would have picked Swalwell as the first to drop, but not super confidently. Williamson won't be the 2nd out either, I think.
 
But again to be fair I acknowledge that some people make these kinds of objections for the wrong reasons. If you get bothered by a POC in a medieval European setting but not white characters in Oriental settings that suggests something to me.
I think a distinction should be made here: casting POC in a show/film that takes place in medieval Europe is fine. People who think medieval times were some sort of ethnostate are really, REALLY ignorant. You had sub-Saharan African people going around, it is not "historically inaccurate" to have them there.

Now if your show is supposed to be rooted in history and you cast a black actor for the role of Robert Hopkin, the English blacksmith, that can seem a little hamfisted, I could agree with that. But having a black person, period, isn't inconsistent.
 
Last edited:
If Rey was 12, they would either have to show something earlier to display how much raw space magic she has in her or have her fight in a way where she used her wits to win against a larger opponent to make the fight more believable.
In TFA, they at least were able to show that Rey was naturally powerful despite having no training, and Kylo was wounded before they fought.

EDIT: movies that are grounded in fantasy need to play by the logical rules they create. If Rey was a freakishly powerful 12 year old and they do a good job of showing just how powerful she is, then a fight against a grown man can be believable.
Think of a ridiculous movie like 3 Ninjas. 3 kids beating up adults is absurd, but the movie establishes that they are stronger than normal kids and that adults are weak as shit by the time the main characters have to fight off 50 adult henchmen. Its not realistic, but the movie follows its own logic so it isn't as hard to suspend disbelief.
The problem of women in action films is slightly different from the issue regarding POC IMO. So to continue with our example here, you say that if there is an internally consistent reason within the lore of the film that you'd accept a twelve year old Rey. But be honest here, don't you think the action sequences would suffer? Would you really find a fight scenes between a twelve year old and an adult male as visually compelling as one between two adult males? I honestly doubt it. It would require more special effects and camera tricks to make it work so regardless of whether its believable within the logic of the story its just visually uncompelling.

The same is true for women, especially the women they cast in these roles. If we were talking about some Gabi Garcia looking woman then sure a fight scene with her could be convincing. But Hollywood casts women like Charlize Theron or Zoey Saldana or Daisy Ridley(Rey). They are good actresses and beautiful but not really convincing in action sequences. This doesn't really apply as much in the context of graphic novels or animation where the characters aren't limited by the physical capability of an actress but rather the imagination and skill of the illustrator/animator.
Kickass was pretty good with a 12 year old girl kicking ass
I wouldn't say its impossible but its harder to pull off scenes like that. I personally was not so impressed with those scenes but its fair to grade those scenes on a curve because they had to deal with a child actress so I respect their effort. To the extent those scenes work I think its because its an action comedy and there's obviously something visually comedic to seeing a 12 year old girl kill numerous adult criminals.
 
Who the fuck liked the last jedi?!?

Feminists and SJW's who didn't see it.

Seriously though, that movie has a lot more problems than overwhelming wokeness(which honestly wasn't as bad as people make it out to be). Killing every major plot thread in the 2nd act of a trilogy, for instance.
 
Feminists and SJW's who didn't see it.

Seriously though, that movie has a lot more problems than overwhelming wokeness(which honestly wasn't as bad as people make it out to be). Killing every major plot thread in the 2nd act of a trilogy, for instance.


I think this is the one issue that leftists and the right can agree on
 
Anyone want to listen to a Trump supporter talk for 25 minutes about getting his dome caved in five seconds?

If so, you are in luck...


Edit: Ben is cool about it, though. Hespec.

I love that guy. It almost pained me to bet on Masvidal in that spot. Almost.
 
Feminists and SJW's who didn't see it.

Seriously though, that movie has a lot more problems than overwhelming wokeness(which honestly wasn't as bad as people make it out to be). Killing every major plot thread in the 2nd act of a trilogy, for instance.

Did your dad see the movie? I bet he had a hard time not making comments about the female characters since he is so alpha.
 
I wouldn't say its impossible but its harder to pull off scenes like that. I personally was not so impressed with those scenes but its fair to grade those scenes on a curve because they had to deal with a child actress so I respect their effort. To the extent those scenes work I think its because its an action comedy and there's obviously something visually comedic to seeing a 12 year old girl kill numerous adult criminals.

It worked in that movie because the child actress was actually good and didn't make you cringe with every line of dialogue she spoke, like 99% of child actors do.
 
Did your dad see the movie? I bet he had a hard time not making comments about the female characters since he is so alpha.

My dad isn't into beta sci-fi fantasy for dorks. It's "Roadhouse" 24/7 at his place.
 
My dad isn't into beta sci-fi fantasy for dorks. It's "Roadhouse" 24/7 at his place.

No doubt. Every Patrick Swayze scene is on repeat.
 
No doubt. Every Patrick Swayze scene is on repeat.

Why wouldn't it be? See the shape he was in? Glistening pecs, spectacular biceps, throbbing thighs, tight masculine buttocks...

I feel like more of man just thinking about it.
 
The problem of women in action films is slightly different from the issue regarding POC IMO. So to continue with our example here, you say that if there is an internally consistent reason within the lore of the film that you'd accept a twelve year old Rey. But be honest here, don't you think the action sequences would suffer? Would you really find a fight scenes between a twelve year old and an adult male as visually compelling as one between two adult males? I honestly doubt it. It would require more special effects and camera tricks to make it work so regardless of whether its believable within the logic of the story its just visually uncompelling.

The same is true for women, especially the women they cast in these roles. If we were talking about some Gabi Garcia looking woman then sure a fight scene with her could be convincing. But Hollywood casts women like Charlize Theron or Zoey Saldana or Daisy Ridley(Rey). They are good actresses and beautiful but not really convincing in action sequences. This doesn't really apply as much in the context of graphic novels or animation where the characters aren't limited by the physical capability of an actress but rather the imagination and skill of the illustrator/animator.

I wouldn't say its impossible but its harder to pull off scenes like that. I personally was not so impressed with those scenes but its fair to grade those scenes on a curve because they had to deal with a child actress so I respect their effort. To the extent those scenes work I think its because its an action comedy and there's obviously something visually comedic to seeing a 12 year old girl kill numerous adult criminals.

I don't know, female action leads never seemed to bother me. I also really liked Atomic Blonde. I know a lot of people love Kill Bill (not a fan but I also tend to dislike Tarantino).

I just like gritty over the top action films so maybe suspending disbelief is easy for me. I mean I loved The Expendables and Rambos and nothing in those is plausible.

And I prefer Rambo 4 and Atomic Blonde over most comic book movies (not sure if Atomic Blonde was a graphic novel or not)
 
Last edited:
I also really liked Atomic Blonde. I know a lot of people love Kill Bill (not a fan but I also tend to dislike Tarantino).

Jesus...

That's about as close to a definitive red flag for poor taste in film as a statement can get.
 
I know a lot of people love Kill Bill (not a fan but I also tend to dislike Tarantino).
I get you on Kill Bill, and Tarantino is spotty for me. It had great moments and it's obviously a great film (I have some of the same issues with Inglourious Basterds), but not always to my taste. It's too much of him in his films, his style is too much of a participant in the story, it's distracting. That's maybe a little harsh but eh.
 
Last edited:
I think a distinction should be made here: casting POC in a show/film that takes place in medieval Europe is fine. People who think medieval times were some sort of ethnostate are really, REALLY ignorant. You had sub-Saharan African people going around, it is not "historically innacurate" to have them there.

Now if your show is supposed to be rooted in history and you cast a black actor for the role of Robert Hopkin, the English blacksmith, that can seem a little hamfisted, I could agree with that. But having a black person, period, isn't inconsistent.
I am not saying premodern societies are ethnostates, in fact I said the opposite earlier
In the case of POC that can also apply. If its a vaguely medieval Europe fantasy and there is a black character they can stick out in a bad way. Doesn't mean you shouldn't include them but there should be an internally consistent logic as to why they are there. So if there is a black character among the main cast there should be black extras in the background signaling the diversity of the setting or if there aren't black extras there should be some explanation for the lone one being there, like him being some kind of foreigner who settled there. Many premodern societies were diverse, even their elites, but that should be communicated in some way.
Your distinction is not valid because it's not unique to medieval Europe, even societies in the Orient were ethnically diverse. For instance, the semi-independent North African principalities had a significant number of Europeans, captured through piracy, in their administration. There were also European merchant communities in cities like Alexandria and there have been more Albanian viziers than Turkish ones in the Ottoman administration.

So I am not saying that fiction set in the medieval era needs to be ethnically homogeneous. But the diversity should have an internally consistent reason for existing. You can do that with the three aforementioned examples I cited and I am sure you can with non-whites in medieval Europe. If your diverse cast isn't cast with something like that in mind I think that is when the audience is more likely to find it jarring. This applies more to historical settings I think.
 
I don't know, female action leads never seemed to bother me. I also really liked Atomic Blonde. I know a lot of people love Kill Bill (not a fan but I also tend to dislike Tarantino).

I just like gritty over the top action films so maybe suspending disbelief is easy for me. I mean I loved The Expendables and Rambos and nothing in those is plausible.

And I prefer Rambo 4 and Atomic Blonde over most comic book movies (not sure if Atomic Blonde was a graphic novel or not)
I haven't seen Atomic Blonde but it looks like a fun movie. However the action is the least enticing aspect of it to me, I'm just expecting fun sexy spy times with Charlize Theron which is enough for me. The Rambo sequels are all trash to me, only First Blood is worth it.

Kill Bill is a good counter example to my point. I prefer the second Kill Bill to the first which is IMO one of the lesser Tarantino films. However I liked the bride as an action lead in that film. It works there because Tarantino completely disregards realism in his fight scenes and goes full Tarantino. Think of this scene from Django
iu
The physics are clearly off but on purpose for the comedic effect. Showing the audience something like that, that is clearly violating the laws of physics as we know it, adds a different kind of suspension of disbelief than merely seeing a dragon in a world where the characters and setting obey the laws of physics. His approach to action is better suited for female action leads for that reason.
I get you on Kill Bill, and Tarantino is spotty for me. It had great moments and it's obviously a great film (I have some of the same issues with Inglourious Basterds), but not always to my taste. It's too much of him in his films, his style is too much of a participant in the story, it's distracting. That's maybe a little harsh but eh.
I like his movies but that's not a harsh criticism at all, its exactly on point. I enjoy how much he revels in his own style most of the time but I can easily see why someone else would not. And even for me its a bit much, specifically when it comes to Kill Bill 1 and Django.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top