Blarghagh

It's not what is hard, it's what's fun.

Done.

Yeah, I'm not sure how M Night Shyamalamadingdong became so terrible. The Sixth Sense was good, Unbreakable was better and Signs, while having an awful script with plotholes you can drive a spaceship through, was at least competently directed and had a powerful, oppressive atmosphere. But after that, it was just turd after turd.

Yeah, that sounds a lot more logical to me which is why I was confused by the phrasing earlier.

So the claim is that they affect unconscious attitudes but not behaviors. Surely that would be a moot point, if said unconscious attitudes do not affect behaviors?

Yeah, someone who shows up baked for an interview doesn't strike me as the most professional of sorts.

It's quite a bizarre phenomenon. Even the most reasonable GGer (lol) seems to portray Sarkeesian as some kind of Machiavellian mastermind orchestrating the downfall of 'fun' and the rise of the matriarchy. She wouldn't even be a thing if they didn't get so butthurt when she was running her little kickstarter. That's not even remotely true. Most GGers think Sarkeesian is a hired public face for McIntosh drunken ramblings.

I believe the original Kickstarter plans included an expansion, some backer tiers included them.

Burton's Alice in Wonderland made over a billion dollars worldwide. I think it's an absolutely terrible film, but there's no doubt that it was extremely succesful from Disney's point of view.

If I recall correctly, turning off "Frame Buffer Effects" should fix that issue. Sadly, it also removes the motion blur effect and a couple of other minor camera effects, but I don't believe there was another workaround.

Hey, Kristoff did say he could live with it if she died earlier in the film. He only stuck with her because she promised him a new sled. Huh, that's actually pretty dark if you take it out of context.

I think that was the lesson we were supposed to take away from it, but it could have been more clear. I didn't say the movie's attempts to subvert classic Disney tropes were entirely succesful. And yeah, the trolls have... problems. I feel like they're a holdover from an earlier version of the script or something, knowing how long the film was in development hell it's a wonder we got a decent movie out of it at all. I prefer Tangled myself, but I can't fault a Disney princess movie that much for its plot as long as it's fun and got a couple of nice tunes. Plus, some people hate Olaf the Snowman and I actually went in wanting to hate him (the previews made him look annoying as hell) but I just can't help but love the little bugger and all the comedy that is surprisingly black once you think about it. "Oh look at that, I've been impaled."

Yeah, pretty much. That's the point of being cryptic. How It Should Have Ended rips into it pretty hard too. The point is, the trolls are cryptic and mischievous and they pull the same shtick again later on the film when the troll chieftain goes "an act of true love" and Anna immediately jumps to "true love's kiss" and the bastard says NOTHING. They're kinda making fun of the whole cryptic prophecy cliché, and the true love prince cliché, and a bunch of other clichés. There's a surprising amount of "what did we do in other movies... let's turn that on its head" in Frozen that almost looks like they're playing it straight. Hans is a good example, and the fact that it ISN'T a kiss that shows true love, etc. Let's not even get into the fact that every single thing the comedy sidekick does is suicidal. How It Should Have Ended video:

What do you think were their actual instructions, then? (edit) Now that I think of it, maybe the parents did take the troll chieftain's instructions to extremes: he just implied that she should keep careful control of her powers, and that they should probably stay hidden (I'm assuming, since otherwise why remove Anna's memories of them?) - not that the sisters should not be together or talk to anybody else at all. Hmm. I had to look up the actual quote and I'm not sure if this is accurate, but I believe these were the instructions: "Your power will only grow, there is beauty in it but also great danger…you must learn to control your powers, fear will be your enemy…" The parents assume this means that other people will fear her, and lock her away and force her to never use her powers again. But the way I see it, they're saying what plays out in the movie - Elsa can't control her powers because she fears them and fears she will hurt people, yet self-acceptance and love is the way she eventually learns to control it. Fear is literally the enemy in learning to control those powers. The trolls use Yoda-speak and the parents are the biggest morons.

Actually, they totally misunderstood the unclear directions of mystic knowledgeable trolls. The trolls were right.

A hundred times this. Tibetan men are much more underrepresented in media than white women are. This isn't diversity, this is whitewashing.

Those similarities are so broad and vague and with its connection to the H.C. Anderson story being what it is, that one is getting laughed out of court. If anything, Disney used to be a lot worse.

I'm confused, are you saying everybody is as stupid by default?

Thanks guys.

It's fine, I was aware of the possibility for a while and managed to prepare for it. That makes me luckier than most.

Was a victim of budget cuts. I guess this is as good a time as any to go back and finish my bachelor's degree.

In essence, the real "check your privelege", instead of the "white males not welcome" thing the internet morphed it into.

Tumblr has turned privelege into a dirty word, I feel. It's not bad to have privelege, it's just important to be aware of it. The monopoly thing demonstrates that a lot of succesful people might not be aware of how lucky they are (I don't know if that study is actually real, however, it was just an internet comment after all).

1: I wasn't talking about the cartoon but a comment on that page, so why is this directed at me? 2: That is not what the basic message of that cartoon is at all. It doesn't make any claims of applying to everyone nor does it make a value judgement. It's only a hypothetical demonstration of how privelege can be invisible to people who benefit from it, not that there's no wiggle room for people with privelege to fail or people without it to succeed. You're the one that took the room for nuance out of it with your rigid and unfair reading of it. To be fair, you do seem like the type that got some extra starting money for your game of monopoly so that makes sense.

...?