Mosquito --🤪--> SJW Ninja Communist Elephant with a tinfoil hat roaming the Outer Worlds. *törööö*

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 11, 20196 yr by Boeroer
Spelled elephant's trumpet sound incorrectly - I'm so sorry.

I think it's time to rename this thread.  Who's with me?

Are Obsidian forum users publicly undercutting needlessly-speculative The Outer Worlds drama?

6 hours ago, Ethics Gradient said:

I think it's time to rename this thread.  Who's with me?

Are Obsidian forum users publicly undercutting needlessly-speculative The Outer Worlds drama?

Wouldn't it be "publicly OVERcutting"? 🤔

To be fair drama is like half the content of the internet. Other half being the porn of course.

On 7/11/2019 at 3:31 PM, Ethics Gradient said:

I think it's time to rename this thread.  Who's with me?

Are Obsidian forum users publicly undercutting needlessly-speculative The Outer Worlds drama?

Nope. It needs to be called:

Is Infinitron posting news (as he claims on his/her/their Codex profile) or fabricating them for s*** and giggles?

I'd like to solve the puzzle...

On 7/10/2019 at 11:48 PM, Boeroer said:

Mosquito --🤪--> SJW Ninja Communist Elephant with a tinfoil hat roaming the Outer Worlds. *törööö*

 

 

 

 

 

Sounds like a deadfire build. 

Bit long I'd say...

Here are my feelings on this issue.

I have many personal political and philosophical beliefs. Everyone does.

I respect everyone's right to hold their beliefs, even if I don't agree with them, and even if they don't believe I should have a right to my beliefs.

In the times we currently live in, it is increasingly hard, if not totally impossible, to make any game/film/book/etc. with any political/philosophical content without enduring instant and constant criticism/harassment.

I grew up in a time where artistic integrity and freedom of speech was sacred, and I am infinitely grateful for it. It is very sad to see that this isn't the case any more.

IMO, ANY developer should be able to make ANY game they want, ANY way they want. I applaud Leonard Boyarsky for trying his damndest to not preach to a particular audience or shove a particular ideology down our throats. I wish more creative directors had the courage to do so.

I wish more creative directors had the courage to give a **** what Twitter and forums are saying.

Except when I say it.

Artistic integrity and freedom of speech have *never* been sacred in the entertainment industry. The federal government were involved in blacklisting "communists" back in the 40's and 50's and various cities, towns, and states have been suppressing films and other media right up through *today*.

I don't know about sacred but there was a time when audience members were more in it for the ride, as opposed to wanting to have a say and be part of the creation. Also, there absolutely was, at the very least, communist sympathizers in old Hollywood. It wasn't even hidden. Some writers changed their names and still wrote straight up communist scripts. Almost every political movie back then was heavy-handed, preachy junk. Having them rounded up was just a ridiculous show and wrong, but at the same time, if you're going to produce straight up propaganda, don't be surprised if you find yourself out of work.

55 minutes ago, Blodhemn said:

I don't know about sacred but there was a time when audience members were more in it for the ride, as opposed to wanting to have a say and be part of the creation. Also, there absolutely was, at the very least, communist sympathizers in old Hollywood. It wasn't even hidden. Some writers changed their names and still wrote straight up communist scripts. Almost every political movie back then was heavy-handed, preachy junk. Having them rounded up was just a ridiculous show and wrong, but at the same time, if you're going to produce straight up propaganda, don't be surprised if you find yourself out of work.

Considering how good The Naked City, The Caine Mutiny, Crossfire and Spartacus amidst other Hollywood Ten films are, gimme some more straight-up Communist propaganda please.

15 hours ago, Katarack21 said:

Artistic integrity and freedom of speech have *never* been sacred in the entertainment industry. The federal government were involved in blacklisting "communists" back in the 40's and 50's and various cities, towns, and states have been suppressing films and other media right up through *today*.

Yeah, and most of the "non-political" era had political subtext at the least. I guess some people are just blinded by nostalgia.

1 hour ago, algroth said:

Considering how good The Naked City, The Caine Mutiny, Crossfire and Spartacus amidst other Hollywood Ten films are, gimme some more straight-up Communist propaganda please.

Sorry to Bother You was written and directed by one and it was probably the best thing I saw last year.

3 hours ago, algroth said:

Considering how good The Naked City, The Caine Mutiny, Crossfire and Spartacus amidst other Hollywood Ten films are, gimme some more straight-up Communist propaganda please.

You like those? Crossfire is more my style but it's just overdone for me. Like everybody had to have a crack at the anti Jewish film. I remember one director even saying his head wasn't really in it but felt like he had to make it.

Yawn ... someone said he wants to make a game that doesn't shove ideology down your throat?  That's fine, he didn't say he was making a game that didn't comment on society so why all the "this is how it should be?"  "No I want buttered popcorn!" talk?  The best part is the interpretation of  an 140 character message ... I read it as her agreeing with the guy right?  Why is everyone so bunched up about

 

Politics is the biggest con going, you're all being taken for a ride!

As if on command - watched a 50's movie last night without much looking at the plot and it turned out to be a warning of Nazi Germany establishing itself in the Caribbean with rockets much more powerful than the V2 to destroy intended targets all across America. This being a mere decade before the Cuban missile crisis. And of course, the director was Jewish. Lolllllllll - the intentional blind eye intellectuals turned and still turn towards communism is simply astounding. It's as if it's too incomprehensible, even for smart people, to imagine two evils in the world. There must only be the one. 

On 7/15/2019 at 3:20 PM, Blodhemn said:

I don't know about sacred but there was a time when audience members were more in it for the ride, as opposed to wanting to have a say and be part of the creation.

Not really. Audience members have *always* gotten pissy about media putting forth a message that they didn't like. In the 30's and 40's audiences would get *REALLY* upset and angry about plays and movies that were about transgender themes, "loose" sexuality, communists, gay people, interracial relationships, drug use, criticism of religion, etc. Hell the first national organization dedicated explicitly to screaming their heads off about "objectionable content" was founded by religious folks in *1933*, and people were flipping their **** about belly buttons in the 1960's. ****, in the late 1990's there were staged protests over movies.  This crap is why we had the Hays Code and the Comics Code Authority and all sorts of ****--because people have *always* flipped their **** over the content of media.

Audiences have *always* wanted to force certain political, cultural, or religious messages into or out of film, comics, books, and yes now video games since it's become a mature industry. It's ****ty, but it's not new. Audience members have been trying to force story-tellers to include or exclude certain content forever.

True. Was speaking more in the realm of suspension of disbelief but got the message crossed with the rest. People always going to gripe. I guess though one of the differences is that it's more on the micro level today, so even the most trivial can have the same weight as a potentially larger issue. But that's not so much an entertainment issue as it is first world as a whole.

How many US films in the 30s and 40s had transgender themes that were suppressed post-code (or were realized pre-code)?  I wasn't under the impression transgender had made much of a pop culture impression until Christine Jorgensen in the early 1950s.  The Hays Code did have provisions against overt sexuality and "perversity" which probably would have kibboshed transgender storylines (although a docudrama might still get through, like Wood's Glen or Glenda), but I'm just not aware of anyone trying to make a film about the topic until Jorgensen made headlines so am curious as to what examples I'm not aware of.

The CCA was driven by new media fears; Frederick Wertham had spuriously connected juvenile delinquents who read comics and, discounting the fact that over 90% of kids in the city read and traded comics, declared comics as the common factor.  It wasn't helped when the Brooklyn Thrill Killers were dropped into his lap.  Oddly though, everyone ignored him when he began the same campaign against television.  Many of Wertham's accusations about comics have been transferred over the years to any new thing kids seem interested, heavy metal, rap, video games, etc.  However the CCA was also a way for comic publishers to hurt their competition.  Archie, National, Atlas, etc., set rules that specifically targeted the best selling comics from EC and Lev Gleason.

Let's not forget Tom of Finland ...

Transgender didn't really exist as a concept at the time, so you have to translate what you see in film from that era into modern conceptions. Pre-Code Hollywood was very, very different from post-Code Hollywood; the creation and application of the Hays Code was very much a reaction, starting with religious groups, to the content of Hollywood films.

What you see in certain films at the time wasn't portrayed as or conceived as "transgender" because that wasn't something that was a known concept. What you *do* see is people of one biological sex dressing, romancing, and occasionally living as the other biological sex, often but not exclusively portrayed in the context of homosexuality and crossdressing. This is often portrayed with male actors dressing in stereotypically feminine attire--such as French maid outfits--and engaging in sexual scenes with men and women, or female actors dressing in stereotypically masculine attire--such as full tails and a top hate--and engaging in romantic and sexual relationships with men and women. This is shown in such movies as "Call Her Savage" and "Dietrich". In movies where this is portrayed without explicitly sexual or romantic scenes, these characters are often coded as "androgynous", "all-encompassing" or "transcending male and female passions" such as in "Queen Christine", where the main character, portrayed by a female actor, has their  hair cut in a typical male fashion, wheres male clothing throughout the film, engages in what was at the time considered typical masculine behavior such as drinking, swearing, and promiscuity and calls themselves a "bachelor for life" at one point.

These are all films that were pre-1934. By 1935, the Hays Code was in full effect, the Production Code Administration had been established, and such themes were completely suppressed. You are correct that Christine Jorgensen was probably the first person to bring transgender and transexuality into widespread public awareness, and "Glen or Glenda" was probably the first film to *explicitly* discuss and be about specifically transgender and transexuality, but the themes in Hollywood well pre-date those events and without question would have been much more deeply and explicitly explored if the Hays Code hadn't come in and censored the hell out of everything.

5 hours ago, Katarack21 said:

Transgender didn't really exist as a concept at the time, so you have to translate what you see in film from that era into modern conceptions. Pre-Code Hollywood was very, very different from post-Code Hollywood; the creation and application of the Hays Code was very much a reaction, starting with religious groups, to the content of Hollywood films.

What you see in certain films at the time wasn't portrayed as or conceived as "transgender" because that wasn't something that was a known concept. What you *do* see is people of one biological sex dressing, romancing, and occasionally living as the other biological sex, often but not exclusively portrayed in the context of homosexuality and crossdressing. This is often portrayed with male actors dressing in stereotypically feminine attire--such as French maid outfits--and engaging in sexual scenes with men and women, or female actors dressing in stereotypically masculine attire--such as full tails and a top hate--and engaging in romantic and sexual relationships with men and women. This is shown in such movies as "Call Her Savage" and "Dietrich". In movies where this is portrayed without explicitly sexual or romantic scenes, these characters are often coded as "androgynous", "all-encompassing" or "transcending male and female passions" such as in "Queen Christine", where the main character, portrayed by a female actor, has their  hair cut in a typical male fashion, wheres male clothing throughout the film, engages in what was at the time considered typical masculine behavior such as drinking, swearing, and promiscuity and calls themselves a "bachelor for life" at one point.

These are all films that were pre-1934. By 1935, the Hays Code was in full effect, the Production Code Administration had been established, and such themes were completely suppressed. You are correct that Christine Jorgensen was probably the first person to bring transgender and transexuality into widespread public awareness, and "Glen or Glenda" was probably the first film to *explicitly* discuss and be about specifically transgender and transexuality, but the themes in Hollywood well pre-date those events and without question would have been much more deeply and explicitly explored if the Hays Code hadn't come in and censored the hell out of everything.

My understanding was that the Hays Code had come about as a self-censoring code from the MPPDA to make sure every Hollywood film could be exhibited and didn't go against any taboos from any state within the US. Since each different state had pretty different legislations and "sensibilities" and censored or banned films for entirely different of reasons, the list became ridiculously long and its implementation often hilariously contradictory as it attempted to cover every single instance where a film's sensibilities could go against those of a state: I don't recall the name of the film right now, but there was a case back then of a film where its female protagonist was initially implied to be fairly promiscuous as a side element to her character, and yet per the Hays Code it was required that this character be both punished in the narrative for this trait, yet also have all evidence of that same trait erased, so what you ultimately had in the final cut of the film was a female character who would literally be punished for some seemingly arbitrary or borderline fetishistic notion of "requiring punishment". They were weird times.

Now that the conversation has moved on into something that has nothing to do with The Outer Worlds, I'm locking the thread. I'd encourage anyone interested to start a new one to continue discussing the new topic of the history of politics in media where such a thread belongs: in Way Off-Topic.

Thanks all.