Have to update things. BSG nailed the updateLet me guess, it's being "reimagined for modern audiences."
Battlestar Galactica?Have to update things. BSG nailed the update
So you didn't like it?Battlestar Galactica?
If that's what you mean I'm going to have to disagree with that completely. That pile of **** was woke before we even knew what woke was. All of the women act like men. All the men are beta cucks who are indecisive and need a good cry about their feelings. Oh and lets not forget, they gender swapped characters really for no reason.
Every single ****ing character has the exact same set of character flaws as a baseline. All of them are barely functioning alcoholics. Every character is incapable of having a healthy adult relationship of any kind be it a friendship or romantic relationship. They are all serial cheaters, drunks and borderline abusive.
Then of course, half the characters are humanoid Cylons which are somehow medically indistinguishable from normal humans yet they have super human abilities. Let's also not forget about the time Starbuck died and came back with no explanation and the best anyone could come up with is that "she's an angel." Stellar writing there guys.
The show's pacing is basically ****. The show is slightly more entertaining than an insurance seminar. About the time when I'd swear off watching anymore of it they'd finally do just enough interesting **** to make me watch it another episode and the cycle would repeat. The budget or lack thereof was readily apparent anytime they were off the ship.
I can go on an on but it wasn't a good show. It was dull, the characters were mostly irritating and they were all exactly the same. Everyone was an unlikable, super flawed piece of ****.
That new BSG was far superior to the old one.Battlestar Galactica?
If that's what you mean I'm going to have to disagree with that completely. That pile of **** was woke before we even knew what woke was. All of the women act like men. All the men are beta cucks who are indecisive and need a good cry about their feelings. Oh and lets not forget, they gender swapped characters really for no reason.
Every single ****ing character has the exact same set of character flaws as a baseline. All of them are barely functioning alcoholics. Every character is incapable of having a healthy adult relationship of any kind be it a friendship or romantic relationship. They are all serial cheaters, drunks and borderline abusive.
Then of course, half the characters are humanoid Cylons which are somehow medically indistinguishable from normal humans yet they have super human abilities. Let's also not forget about the time Starbuck died and came back with no explanation and the best anyone could come up with is that "she's an angel." Stellar writing there guys.
The show's pacing is basically ****. The show is slightly more entertaining than an insurance seminar. About the time when I'd swear off watching anymore of it they'd finally do just enough interesting **** to make me watch it another episode and the cycle would repeat. The budget or lack thereof was readily apparent anytime they were off the ship.
I can go on an on but it wasn't a good show. It was dull, the characters were mostly irritating and they were all exactly the same. Everyone was an unlikable, super flawed piece of ****.
You seem to be under the impression that I disliked the new series out of some nostalgia for the original series, or by comparison. Well let me set the record straight on that. If I have seen the original Battlestar Galactica show at all, it was so long ago that I have almost zero memory of it. I was very young in the 1980's when it was on and we had one TV in the house. My parents didn't watch it, so I didn't watch it.That new BSG was far superior to the old one.
Irrelevant. This was not my complaint.You must have missed where they said "this has all happened before" referring to the original series. It was written to be a continuation of the old story.
I do not care if the story connects to the original or not, nor do I give a **** about some mental gymnastics justifying gender changes in television. There are cases where gender changes actually work well in remakes of shows, but this wasn't one of them. That would have worked if they actually wrote the character to act like a woman and not a man. Nu-BSG takes from the modern school of writing strong female characters. Essentially, those come in two flavors.Starbuck being a female the next time thru.... it's 50-50 whether it's xx or xy sperm that gets through. It's the same characters but not the same people. Probably the only time that they could get away with a gender change. I assume the decision was made to create more interesting inter-character interactions if one of the pilots is female. Apollo and Starbuck ****ing comes to mind. I guess they could have done that with a male Apollo and a male Starbuck, but ppl would bitch about that too...
You are confused. A well written, strong female character looks nothing like what we get from modern Hollywood. Rey, Michael Burnham, all the women in Ghostbusters 2016, etc. are not examples of well written characters or strong women. They are angry Mary Sue self-insert characters with the personality of a crouton. They are written by people who think, being a lesbian is a character type. It's not character at all.Tough women characters? Who gives a ****. All this whining about 'woke' is some overamplified fear that right-media has been feeding you. Seeing a strong female lead doesn't mean that you as a man are a weak pussy... I never heard anyone complain about Ripley in Aliens, probably as woke as something can get. Loved it, wouldn't change a thing.
I never said anything about the Marvel movies. I enjoyed most of them up to Endgame. I haven't seen anything other than a couple of the TV shows after that.Not to give Disney a pass for the clusterfuck that was episode 8... but the Marvel franchise was really good up thru endgame and spiderman. Haven't yet seen the second Captain Marvel movie.
I never said it was. Again, having strong female characters in films was never a problem. Many of my favorite movies from the 1980's had them. Alien, Aliens, The Terminator, etc. I had no issues with Nikita or a number of other shows with female protagonists.What ****ed Star Wars wasn't the fact that the new young jedi was female,
Oh, there is wokeness in those dogshit films. However, that's actually the least of their problems. The writing is atrocious and nonsensical. Not to mention, contradicts established lore or ignores it entirely.it was that they turned Luke into a huge pussy (completely out of character) and threw away all of the previous 6 movies... It was ****ty writing, not to be conflated with 'woke' whatever the ****.
Again, most reboots are **** because they make changes to suit mythical "modern audiences" that don't exist. The woke **** is the prioritizing of specific ideologies over story or even facts in the case of some pseudo documentaries like the Netflix series on Cleopatra. Reboots often fail because the writers of the reboots do not understand the source material. They miss the essence of what made those shows endure the test of time and what made them popular. They fail because they make changes for all the wrong reasons.If they are making another X-Files, it should really be a new set of characters. Guess we will see. I have to agree that most reboots are ****.
I think almost all of what you bring up is true, and yet I still liked the show, except for the ending.Battlestar Galactica?
Most people who like the new one hasn't seen the original. Most usually these remakes are aimed at those not familiar with the old, and not as fan service to the few lingering fans of the original show.That new BSG was far superior to the old one.
You can't just make something null and void by inserting a single throwaway line. I can fully understand that fans of the original were upset by completely replacing a character with a different one. It's not about strang whamen. If they changed a woman into a man that would be just as annoying as a fan. Except the wind only blows in one direction in hollywood. Away from heroic straight males.You must have missed where they said "this has all happened before" referring to the original series. It was written to be a continuation of the old story. Starbuck being a female the next time thru.... it's 50-50 whether it's xx or xy sperm that gets through. It's the same characters but not the same people. Probably the only time that they could get away with a gender change. I assume the decision was made to create more interesting inter-character interactions if one of the pilots is female. Apollo and Starbuck ****ing comes to mind. I guess they could have done that with a male Apollo and a male Starbuck, but ppl would bitch about that too...
It's kind of ironic that you mention media feeding anyone anything while reciting the woke narrative word for word. i.e. that those who complain about gender swaps and "strong female characters" are just insecure.Tough women characters? Who gives a ****. All this whining about 'woke' is some overamplified fear that right-media has been feeding you. Seeing a strong female lead doesn't mean that you as a man are a weak pussy... I never heard anyone complain about Ripley in Aliens, probably as woke as something can get. Loved it, wouldn't change a thing.
I had to chuckle here. You're using a video game where the protagonist in it is a female character yet every bit the physical equivalent of the male character other than body shape sex organs and tone. I know this example isn't about that... but video games told movies this is how you do equality. Even if it's wrong.A strong female character will use her feminine viles against men and manipulate them like a snake charmer. These days an actual strong female character would freak out most woke ideologs. Because women can't be beautiful and feminine, and man can't be heroic and masculine anymore for some reason. This one character in a videogame who appears for 10 minutes shows more genuine feminine strength than all the "strong female" characters combined from hollywood.
To be fair, you can be male or female in the game and you are also talking about a protagonist that in most cases will be heavily augmented with cybernetics. Far more than even most of the special forces soldiers you'll run into in the game. You also do not have to engage in melee combat at all. You can shoot your enemies or use netrunning skills to fry them.I had to chuckle here. You're using a video game where the protagonist in it is a female character yet every bit the physical equivalent of the male character other than body shape sex organs and tone.
This isn't entirely accurate either. Like a lot of comic book characters, some of the strong female characters in game lore are augmented. Commander Shepard in the Mass Effect series receives "the standard Alliance genetic modification package" just as any other Alliance soldier. In the second game, depending on your dialog choices its revealed that Cerberus upgraded Shepard (mostly out of necessity) in some areas though the specifics of Shepard's augmentation are left intentionally vague.I know this example isn't about that... but video games told movies this is how you do equality. Even if it's wrong.
You know that's for practical reasons and not for any ideological ones, right? Besides I doubt hollywood is getting their DEI cues from videogames.I had to chuckle here. You're using a video game where the protagonist in it is a female character yet every bit the physical equivalent of the male character other than body shape sex organs and tone. I know this example isn't about that... but video games told movies this is how you do equality. Even if it's wrong.
I'm assuming you are talking about men versus women in a fight. Men and women have the same capabilities as far as intelligence goes so we can assume its possible to pit equally skilled men and women together in a fight. There is actually a ton of data on this and the results are pretty clear. Men win the overwhelming majority of the time even if the man is at a skill deficit. Skill in a fight is certainly valuable, but skill won't overcome physics.Obviously with proper training a woman can become the equivalent or even better than an average man.
This is certainly the bigger problem by a long shot. It's a combination of these characters not having to earn or learn anything and generally unlikeable and flawless. In The Rise of Skywalker Rey makes a mistake only to find out later that she was mistaken about making a mistake. That's the kind of crap we are working with.The problem is the Mary Sue effect, where the female character doesn't earn their strength. For example Captain Marvel or Rey in Force Awakens.
But I wasn't talking about equally skilled men vs women. I meant average man who is not a very skilled fighter.I'm assuming you are talking about men versus women in a fight. Men and women have the same capabilities as far as intelligence goes so we can assume its possible to pit equally skilled men and women together in a fight. There is actually a ton of data on this and the results are pretty clear. Men win the overwhelming majority of the time even if the man is at a skill deficit. Skill in a fight is certainly valuable, but skill won't overcome physics.
On average. Which is irrelevant here.The average man is going to be taller than his female counterparts. Men have much greater muscle, joint and bone density. Men have a great deal more muscle mass, especially in the upper body.
Depends on what do you mean by great deal. There are probably hundreds of thousands of women in sports who surpass an average dude who doesn't work out. If it takes PEDs who cares? The question is not what it takes, but whether it is plausible.It takes a great deal of physical training and steroids for a woman to equal much less surpass the average man.
But we are talking about fiction, where we have the luxury of assuming that the female is the best possible fighter. If the game/show/movie presents a woman who looks the part and also has the background to back it up, then I have zero issues with her holding her own against men.Even then, in a fight they still have massive disadvantages. Women are generally shorter and smaller in stature than their male counterparts meaning that men will have a reach advantage and more leverage in a fight even if they are close in relative strength.
Obviously if both are trained professionals then the woman has no chance, maybe if she has a size and weight advantage. Thankfully most sports federations don't allow trans people to compete against biological women.This has been done several times. In the cases where "trans women" have fought in female MMA bouts, the results were disastrous. Fallon Fox fought Tamikka Brents in 2014. This resulted in Tamikka Brents getting a concussion and an orbital bone fracture in the first round. Tamikka Brents is far from weak for a woman, but as a man Fallon Fox is lightweight.
Lucia Rjiker is widely regarded as one of if not the best female kickboxers of all time. She had four titles and lost to an amateur male champion. She had far greater technique, but if you watch the video he's faster, more aggressive and he knocks her around throughout the fight.
Obviously, I've been complaining about this since before woke or social justice were even conceived. Hollywood always hated actual strong women, with the exception of a few low budget B movies in the 80s and 90s they never featured women who could actually kick some ***.The bottom line is the women that are strong enough and skilled enough to fight an average man do not look like the 110lbs. 5'4" women they typically use in action movies.
It doesn't even have to be an actual skilled fighter, it's acting, so as long as she can act the part her real world background doesn't matter.If you watch Gina Carrano in the Mandalorian its much easier to believe she can fight a man. Not only does she have technique and actual skills, but she's much larger than most women. She's got a big frame and a lot of muscle mass for a woman.
That doesn't just apply to women, plenty of male actors who don't take training for roles seriously enough. Or worse the choreographer is a diversity hire with no real experience or skills either. This is why I like B-movies where they don't have the money to hire actresses so many action roles are played by stuntwomen.In a lot of the fight choreography you see in these movies, you can see the stunt men having to slow down and accommodate their female co-stars. These stunt men tend to be in good physical condition and aren't the "average" man either making the disparity even more hilarious. Of course there are shows and games that do maintain the suspension of disbelief at seeing stuff like this. This is primarily the case with comic book films.
I have not seen Rise of Skywalker.This is certainly the bigger problem by a long shot. It's a combination of these characters not having to earn or learn anything and generally unlikeable and flawless. In The Rise of Skywalker Rey makes a mistake only to find out later that she was mistaken about making a mistake. That's the kind of crap we are working with.
I wonder if they'll ever change course or rather go down in a fiery inferno. But as long as companies like sweetbabyinc exist there is little hope.If they were Mary Sue's that were likable it would be an improvement. But these "characters" go around bashing men and all the men in the films are made into bumbling idiots to make the unlikable characters better by comparison.
This THIS right here. They did it right for the other island women on the first Wonder Woman movie. They were all actual athletes at the top of their game. Olympians. Gal Gadot was excused by being a god. (if that's a spoiler eat it.) I liked that movie for that aspect.If the game/show/movie presents a woman who looks the part and also has the background to back it up, then I have zero issues with her holding her own against men.
If we are being honest atomic blonde too, the difference is that she is shown not to be invulnerable there, which is a step in the right direction. But still OP for her build.But **** near every other action movie with a female lead other than like Atomic Blonde, (recent movies) it's ben the waif firing an machine gun with no recoil and kicking everyone's ***.
And she was amazing in that.If we are being honest atomic blonde too, the difference is that she is shown not to be invulnerable there, which is a step in the right direction. But still OP for her build.
I'm not greedy, if female action heroes looked like Jessica Biel in Blade Trinity that would be enough for the suspension of my disbelief.
