Last night i watched Tomb Raider with Angelina Jolie and i started thinking of all her recent action roles along with other female celebrities like Milla Jovovich from Resident Evil movie series. Has the woman's role in movies changed from damsel in distress to the hero of the movie that the male is now the one in need of rescuing and men and women are both willing to see the movie and accept the premise?
I am curious if women action movies get the same turn out as guy action movies or more since i recently saw Sucker Punch and it was pretty good in a weird way which made lots of money but then i remembered how poorly the Wonder Woman pilot did and if it had anything to do with sexism against the females. Do people think its okay to see a female action hero in the big screen for an hour and a half then to see them regularly on TV, is it acceptance or simply tolerance?
Another thing i was thinking was are the female action stars being watched b/c the female hero is appealing or simply b/c the female hero happens to be extremely attractive and even in an action movie sex appeal is more important then script?
If we removed Sweet Pea from Sucker Punch and instead replaced her with a more moderate looking woman maybe slightly older and changed her outfit would people still enjoy the movie and be willing to go see it?
My thoughts led me to the next female action hero Laura Croft and if the same holds true to her, by the way her second movie sucked hard, it was horrible. Back to Laura Croft the main physical attributes of the character is her extremely large breast and short shorts that of course was made sure to be put in the movie and focus on her physical attributes. Now this is Hollywood so i guess it is expected but how important is it really for the overall success of the movie and do the male counterpart action movies worry as much with their action star's physical appeal or is it slightly less important since they know guys are going to watch it anyways just to see things get blown up and people dying?
I guess one of my big questions is are the female action hero movie focused more on getting the guy viewings by using attractive females or are they trying to get women viewers and worry about them more so then the male viewer, or is it a healthy mix of both, who are these movies made to attract?
It was recently brought to my attention by certain comic reading parents that today's comics are not really focus much on the children readers and have taken a darker turn toward more adult settings and plots. I think that it is nice to have somewhat mature stories from time to time but also keep it somewhat accessible to kids as well but more and more we see things that might make a parent squirm if they saw what an 8 or 11 yr old kid might find inside the comic pages. Things like Lady Sif in bed after sex with Thor or Starfire lounging naked near a pool, although the art is carefully drawn to not show any nipple or crotch slippage it is still pretty risque. So all these things started making me think of what else we find in comics and one thing that came to mind was drugs. Drugs have been shown a lot in the last decade in comics although it may not glorify them it does provide a skewed window to kids about drugs without real life repercussions. Of course there was drugs in the 80's in one of the DD comics over smack but that really wasn't the norm and it won some kind of drug awareness award, irrc.
I am curious of what kind of message we are sending to kids today about drug use and if the comic company even cares anymore and simply writes it in cause it is a gritty story and is not worried about drug awareness or responsibility toward the younger readers. I start thinking what does a kid think when he sees a guy prepping himself a fix in a comic panel, does he go ask his parents about drugs or does the image and curiosity gets stored in his mind and come out some time later in his life?
Do Comic Company have any responsibility to the message or questions they put out to kids or as always does it fall on the parents to make sure they know what comic they are reading? O_o When i was a kid my mom didnt have to worry about what i read when i come home with TMNT comics or Superman but now i feel like parents should know what is inside comics and if they really want their kids reading such comics. Like i said comics has seriously moved away from the younger kid audience and it is sad b/c they are losing out on a good revenue simply to target younger adults and teens.
We all know back in the day everyone got powers by some near impossible freak accident of exploding chemicals in a lab or being zapped by radiation or even drinking some kind of super soldier serum in some government funded secret Lab. But, now these powers seem to come more and more in pill form, inhalers, shooting up and half the time i dont even know what message the comic industry is trying to send out to people. By no means em i a prude on drugs but i am trying to look at this from a parents point of view and how comics have changed in modern times.
Lets talk about drugs in comics, what do you all think? O_o
I was cruising through the internet as i normally do you know looking to expand my mind and i came across certain youtube videos and celebrity news which got me thinking about public apologies. I think we all have something to apologize to certain people close to our lives and sometimes we do, i cant think of anyone i know that is perfect and has not done something they are not sorry for. I think when we do something wrong we should own up to it and apologize to the person we hurt not necessarily in private but not necessarily looking for a crowd to see and hear you apologize to another person. In celebrity news you see celebrities who make mistakes in their private lives are forced by their camp to make public apologies to fans, people who have nothing to do with whatever transgression the person may have committed.
I dont see how it is any other person's business to what happens to another person in their personal life, i dont see regular people apologizing for swearing when ordering food or having a conversation with a friend, why should a celebrity?
What business is it of yours to want someone to apologize to you personally b/c he was at a party with friends and was seen drinking or doing drugs?
If a celebrity cheats on his or her wife, they dont need to apologize to you but to their lover and it is between them and their God if they believe in such things. I think our society has become a bunch of busy body drama queens who think other people's personal life is their business when in truth it isnt. If you dont like what they do then dont buy their albums or go to their movies more often those who are judgmental about them dont actually support the celebrity during the best of their career.
I think a lot of these transgression arent even apology worthy, i mean cursing and being caught on camera somehow warrants an apology to you the fans? Did anyone ask George W. Bush to apologize all those times he swore and flipped the bird on camera when he thought it was off? I think if people want to start setting a standard they should start with the person at the top and not some guy in entertainment.. Oh, Dont forget we have freedom of speech and expression. >_>
I dont approve of certain celebrities and their actions like drinking and driving or stealing jewelery or passing out in a strangers house but at the end of the day the celebrity should be apologizing to the store, house owner, and be grateful they didnt run anyone over. Drinking and Driving is my pet peef but i dont expect a celebrity to apologize to me. I think for the most part we need to start minding our business, you know what they say about the curious cat, i think that applies to nosy busy bodies as well..
It's there life not yours worry about your own before you start worrying about others not everyone has a reason to apologize to a bunch of nobodies. It is hard enough to apologize to the ones they hurt and you people want one too? Grow the f$%$ up and get over it like everyone else does with your crap.
I, like many of us here enjoy art in comics and in various other mediums so much so that i learned to draw, paint, sculpt, and glass edge as a teenager taking art classes in high school and being self taught in other areas. I think many of us have at one time or another stared at a comic page with splash art and were impressed stating how awesome it was and probably the best thing you have ever seen, I know i have. How many times have we put pencil to paper and doodled, sketched a character simply to redraw what we saw or to create our own art for ourselves. I know that at the time we might be critical of ourselves and say its no good or pretty crappy a few others might think different and for good reason, that it is on par to those you see in other mediums yet, your talent goes unappreciated while others are praised for their mediocrity.
This is what i want to focus on, how is it that others whose art work is inferior to various other people today get to be put in museums and praised for the simple reason in that it was drawn 100's of years ago. Even when in the artist own time was considered mediocre by their contemporary yet today they are put in museum simply due to being unique and surviving. Snobbish art critiques praising the mediocrity of how fantastic the art strokes are something that the artist at the time wasn't too worried about when painting. At the time the artist was simply being half @$$ed with no formal training trying to hurry and maintain a schedule or simply being scattered brained.
I think today people who have no business judging art are the ones who say what is art with a snobbish elitist attitude about it, i have seen art work from comics, movie posters, and paintings of today that are far superior in technique, color, lighting, anatomy then what the masters of the past could only hope for and would cry and tear their own canvas if they were shown the art of today. I am not a fan of abstract art and although i do enjoy landscaping and fruit bowl paintings to me such art does not deserve a place in a museum as a "Great works of Art". I can understand that they are placed there due to being relics but for people to argue for them for anything else especially against modern art is what really bothers me. Painters of the past would often paint people in churches, walls, fresco style painting in attempt to paint them as realistically as possible but if you look at it objectively many times the artist failed as the faces were flat even alien in appearance something an artist today could fix and do better.
So why do we praise an artist for failing to make a realistic portrait on a wall or roof as is his goal but we ignore the guy on the beach boardwalk who pumps out a charcoal life like portrait in minutes and can paint you a portrait half the time if not less of what it would take a "Master" of the past and be far superior? O_o
Why do we lie to ourselves about what is quality art, we praise something that is mediocre simply due to age?
How many times have you see something in a museum or art book that is horrible but for some retarded reason is worth more then what you will ever make and the worse part it is something that you yourself can whip up in your garage without trying in under a few minutes?
Could the greatest artist of the Renaissance replicate and compete with the artist of today and vice versa?
Who is your favorite artist and art style, modern or past and why?
feel free to give your opinion on the subject, i expect nothing less. you can also post your favorite art work here.
So i was watching one of the video interviews with one of the writers for DC and of course they were throwing the word reboot and denying a retcon, it kinda got tiring after hearing it over and over. The fact that their restarting their universe means it is a retcon like any other retcon made in comics calling it otherwise doesnt change the fact that Heroes will start their adventures over and recent stories will not have any impact to the character in their new adventures. If it wasnt a retcon why are characters that should be dead or paralyzed once again alive healthy and beginning their career? O_o
Why is Green Lantern finding out that Batman is real and not an urban Myth?
This means that they will share new adventures some being similar as the old story but more or less completely different continuity, just b/c you call it a reboot doesnt me it isnt a retcon. I guess we can call Heroes Reborn, Crisis on Infinite Earth, Zero Hour a reboots as well and not retcons. *SMH*
This Reboot name is an insult to their readers intelligence hoping not to anger their fan base while they try to get new readers before they cut the chord with the old readers that supported the company for years. The writers have no respect for the readers let alone each other when you have writers failing to maintain character continuity and purposely ignoring past writer in favor for their own story which results in these constant universal retcons that DC is known for and are mockingly predicted by readers and thrown around in forums to insult certain readers and their comic taste.
I remember when i would pick up certain comics and reread a similar adventure with certain heroes and villains even having similar art with a modern art style that mirrored something that i vaguely remember reading in the 80's. It was a story that occurred prior to infinite earth with slight modification but the story was basically the same and i felt cheated by the writer and comic company. They recycled stories solely to get money and yet only the old readers would pick up on it while new readers thought it was new. How would you feel if you bought 5 comics only for it to be the same exact plot drawn by different artist and slightly altered by writers, how long would you continue to buy these comics, would you call it a Reboot or a Retcon?
There is no difference what they call it the effects are the same just like their stories, all they will do is scale back powers and let their writers power them up back to ridicules levels only to repeat the process once it gets out of hand. I feel like this is the PR Guy from Spin City trying to sell us a line of the Mayor not funneling tax money into a private account but actually relocating city assets to protect city financial interests. We readers are not stupid its insulting to think of us as such, what kinda shizz is it saying that it isnt a retcon b/c majority of the heroes will retain their original origin? O_0
Wolverine retained the same origin of how he received his adamantium in the Age of Apocalypse that hardly makes him the same wolverine of 616, Superman retained the same origin in the various retcons and else worlds that he has been in, that doesnt mean each superman is the same as the last one and their story part of continuity.
I can already see DC fans using the last DC adventures of heroes and villains to support arguments in the battle forum even when their rebooted heroes will lack any showings of power and feats of the previous incarnation. These reboots/retcons whatever they want to call it was old with Zero Hour and it was old when individuals heroes would have their origin individually altered do we really need to repeat it?
Instead of making reboots/retcons, how about DCU start firing people responsible for continuity errors and hiccups who do it purposely? these retcons/reboots dont fix anything if the people who screw things up like the Geoff Johns of the comic world are still allowed to continue working, we will continue to see these half @$$ retcon/reboots b/c you the readers keep buying garbage comic stories that make no sense, you let them get away with it instead of refusing to buy their stories.
I used to have this cool blog page years ago with description of certain superheroes and fanboy feats which is basically people over exaggerating, misinformation and outright lies of powers and abilities of certain superheroes to defend them in the battle forum. I recently looked it up and it was accidentally deleted by a certain someone who shall remain nameless and i felt its loss has cheated the newer members of comicvine with some of the funniest feats that people were posting in it. So i decided to remake the blog and give you all an example of what was posted.
Daredevil: sense of touch is so sharp that he can feel a spot light on his back shined from a mile away and tell you its color.
Superman: Superman is so Super that everything he does he makes super, Example: Super Ventriloquism, Super Weaving, Super Sewing, Super Hypnotism, Super Door Ripping. Superman's eyesight is so super that he can see through reality all the way into heaven to God's bathroom past the locked door, true story. Spiderman: Spiderman's precog makes him untouchable, he can dodge bullets in mid air which means he has sound barrier breaking reflex so he cant be touched and only happens in comics for story purposes.
people can feel free to post any fanboy feat of any character they can think of that they have heard in the past or can make one up and post it here.
i was thinking how the superhero always seems to take the moral high ground often claiming to possess unwavering morals and even ethical standard when fighting crime. Many heroes seem to have an ambiguous moral compass whose needle seems to spin and point just about every random direction as much as the criminal they are fighting with, How many times has the hero broken the law for their own personal convenience?
Are not the heroes themselves as much a criminal as those they fight? Can you name violations of laws committed by certain superheroes? How long would you lock them up for, possibility of parole?
Let's say if Superman stood in front of the judge which was you and you know everything their is to know about him thanks to your 4th wall awareness what would you charge him with?
You can do this with any Hero in comics if you like, just name their crimes. here are some heroes that i like to see charged with a crime:
Wonder Woman Thor Ms. Marvel Spiderman Captain America Captain Marvel(DC)
It might be a head scratcher to think of some of the laws they may have broken in their superhero career but trust me it is there. Just think of how serious some of these law violations really are and how no one in the real world could ever get away with some of the stuff these "heroes" have pulled.
Many of us have heard the Quote: "We can judge society by their prisons". I always have that in the back of my mind whenever i go out and see various people running around me. i tend to desocialize myself from them all, i have been doing it since i can remember and its gotten worse since i have traveled and seen 3rd world nations.
I tend to equate the random person i see in society as just an animal no different then those i see in zoos or on discovery channel. Many people see certain behavior to be criminal or uncivilized but i often ask myself that the person is simply being true to one self.
I can understand that some people say that they are not animals and take offense when one is compared to one, then why is every society or culture have some type of similarity and behavior to those of other animal societies, from your common rat to an animal that many believe we are similar to such as the great ape.
I sometimes see Bums Salvaging and scurrying and running into alleys, i see young kids Running around and raising their voice and puffing their chest to another similar aged kid or adult. i then turn around and see a oversize Cop drinking his Coffee and eating his donuts with the assurance and Dominance that can only come from the uniform and Badge but not his own natural Physical dominance that would be given to him by genetics. the cop walking around like the Beta male that he is when the Alpha male is not around.
It bothers me to hear people constantly saying they are not animals they are civilized and are spiritual and supposedly follow some religious or ethical code but all i see is a lie and ignoring of said beliefs.
i then think about the prisons and inmates and how they are treated by supposed enlighten, spiritual and advanced society as nothing more then hypocrisy by the general population. If people actually considered themselves an advance society morally, ethically and legally they would not allow certain behavior outside and within the prison's walls to occur. The prisons serve as a way of shunning and removing unwanted members from the general population/tribe.
i have no problem with that since it is normal but what i do not think is normal is to shun and remove some one who does drugs, steals and murders but turn around and the rest of the society by silent consent to allow crimes to be committed on the criminals but not care justifying it by saying: b/c it is happening to someone they consider to be a criminal and there for deserve it and not so abhorrent .
I find society, laws and ethics more often then not to be a farce a complete and utter joke that are ignored by those in power or authority for their own convenience only applied when it suits them.
Justice isnt impartial as the statue of Blind Lady Justice would have us believe, We as a whole are just very ignorant children running around pretending to know better. the danger of it is that the Laws of Nature have bn overturned by Society. where the pedestrian crime can result in losing one's life and freedom but a Politician, or respected member of society can walk out of court pronounced innocent with a smile on his face and having the highest negative impact on the society as a whole...
To me society is like an insane asylum being run by the inmates. The weak pass judgment on the strong or are ignored or treated like second class citizens, the coward is the authority the courages are imprisoned . The Judge is more a criminal with their own agenda beyond justice and no one cares or questions them in a society where democracy supposedly rules...
I know it is long i am just vending, here are the Questions:
How do you view society in general in comparison to the animal kingdom like the Great Apes, Wolves and various other animals?
Do you think Society as a whole is more consciously evolved as the Social Laws, moral, or business ethics and supposed Religious preference would have them be?
Do you see Human Society to be hypocritical in its applications of laws and rules?
What is your opinion on our society if you were an Anthropologist and studying our culture what would you see?
We know that in the bible it states that God is the supreme Deity with aspects of itself separate and connected the Holy Spirit and the Son an odd concept of Monotheism but let's take it as is. The Bible is often looked at by followers as historical truth and word of God but if we look at it as any other legend, literature, and history written by man can we find evidence that shows God that he is not unique and alone but is part of an ancient polytheistic pantheon through actual archeological evidence.
We have heard of Ba'al in the bible but most are not aware that in ancient times Ba'al was not just a god of another pantheon but that he himself was not a supreme deity but was below another Supreme God and father of the gods, El of the Ugaritic pantheon,
Now if El sounds familiar it is because El is the name for God, in Hebrew it is El who freed the Israelites from Egypt the name is not simply used as a title but as a deity's name. So if we use the bible to study the middle east and the cultures of that time we are pointed toward certain archeological evidence that shows God as being a Canaanite god, one among many but at the apex of the pantheon.
it's similarities shows that God was not alone and not truly monotheistic as can be shown in these quotes:
I saw Jehovah sitting on his throne and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right. 1 Kings 22:19
God standeth in the congregation of God; He judgeth among the gods Psalm 82:1
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, Genesis 1:26
“Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods? Exodus 15:11
The bible explicitly states that Israel had it's own divine council and pantheon of gods and was polytheistic and if we take all this into account with what we find archeologically and historically from cultures like the Canaanites we see similarities. Now there are Rabbi's who acknowledge God of the Judeo Religion is not alone and that God has his intermediaries that God hold's council with, so why cannot these beings be gods themselves?
I ask these questions in order to cement the argument that God was not just alone without peers but that he had a wife, named, Asherah. Her name appears over 40 times in the bible yet oddly enough never mention in any sermon or bible reading. Asherah's name can be found as part of the Ugaritic pantheon, wife to El his counterpart so now using the bible and archeological evidence we can begin to connect the tots of who Asherah is mentioned in the bible which seem to be purposely put out of context making people guess at what Asherah could be.
Is God, El, a Cananite God? Is the Bible not Monotheistic but actually polytheistic? Was there purposely mistranslation of Hebrew and Christian religion to hide Asherah turning her name from Asherah to Host? What would it mean to have Asherah's name appear next to Yahweh in hebrew?
This only makes since if you know the subject i am talking about and the references i am making.
It is a shame when one refuses to acknowledge one's own mistakes and instead points the finger at others and theirs and refuses to change. None are perfect yet some of us stare at the mistakes of our past and vow not to repeat them and do our best to change. That is what makes us different then you, We are not hypocrites b/c we see the wrongs of our past selfish actions and ask you to change or at the very least to try.
We are not always fair but we try. We are not perfect but we aspire to the idea, we make changes in our lives for the better and sometimes take a step back but we keep going forward not forgetting our goal to change.
You raise a mirror and ask me what i see, I see a man who has made many wrongs in his life and in-between has asked for the ability to change having regrets of past actions hoping not to repeat them again. When the mirror is turned at you what do you see?
You refuse to even look in the mirror turning it away and even smashing it refusing to see your mistakes and continuing to make them without shame or regret. But, you call me the hypocrite, what does that make you, a tyrant, a good person or just someone who does not care who turns the other way and is indifferent?
Greater the shame for the person who refuses to change let alone peer into their own soul. I judge you as weak, unworthy and a coward.