What should a female breastplate really look like

[moridin84]

Oh god. This thread is still going?

Edited May 14, 2013 by moridin84

[Dream]

Leaving aside the obvious question of what "meaningful discussions" can be had about a popcorn film if we're arbitrarily disallowed from discussing anything beyond the surface level of the film because it apparently makes us "pretentious snobs" who think we're "better than everyone else," who was claiming that the film had a "deeper meaning" that only they understood?

 

I mean, there's a world of difference between your "blue curtains" example and saying that the movie where a diplomat gets kicked down a well just might have an anti-diplomat agenda.

You know what? You're right. The producers probably felt that the role of diplomats in the middle east was a discussion worth having and so to facilitate that they added a scene about it into a movie that was marketed as 70% action, 20% screaming, and 10% nude chicks.

 

Or they just wanted to show Gerard Butler kicking a dude down a well while yelling the film's iconic line.

 

Just out of curiosity, what was your degree in?

[Lephys]

Oh god. This thread is still going?

Yep. Now it's about 300, and all the hidden significance within movies, and the effects of human psychological tendencies upon storytelling and historical accuracy.

[Ffordesoon]

@Dream:

 

I don't have a degree in anything. :|

 

Why is this so hard to understand? I'm not saying "The red Spartan capes represent maternity" or some other insane thing. I'm not even arguing that it's anti-gay or pro-fascism or whatever. I haven't even seen the thing, if you'll recall! I'm only arguing the principle.

 

My only point - my only point! - is that the movie has themes. Whether they were put in there because they sounded good or because they meant something to the filmmakers is irrelevant. The point is, they are in the movie, if only because Gerard Butler has to scream something.

 

Why this seems to anger you is inexplicable to me.

[Dream]

My only point - my only point! - is that the movie has themes. Whether they were put in there because they sounded good or because they meant something to the filmmakers is irrelevant. The point is, they are in the movie, if only because Gerard Butler has to scream something.

 

Why this seems to anger you is inexplicable to me.

So let me get this straight; you're now saying that your original stance was that this movie has themes (something that every single movie ever made has). Okay, well while I get that shifting the goalposts is a fun activity and all; thankfully this is the internet so we can look at what your ACTUAL stance was:

I'm saying that there are more layers to the story than "Some wicked awesome dudes fought in a battle and all died but they were so super awesome that the Persians retreated."

Unfortunately, now you're contradicting yourself by admitting that the themes were maybe just there simply so Gerard had something to scream in between all the action.

 

In the end what your actual issue is is the fact that you're trying to argue about something you haven't even seen. Maybe (crazy idea here) you should go and a watch the movie before trying to have a discussion about it. Just a thought.

 

[Ffordesoon]

@Dream:

 

OH THANK GOD. :D

 

No, my whole point was that every story has themes, as it seemed to me you were saying that only certain "artsy" stories have themes. That was all I meant by "more layers." It was simply a poorly chosen phrase, and I accept full responsibility for any confusion or consternation it might have caused. This whole tiff seems to have been a case of us talking past each other, which relieves me to no end.

 

I can see now why you called me a pretentious snob. Reading my words now, with a little distance, I get a distinct whiff of tweed and college girls.

 

The fact is, I was struggling to figure out how to respond to you, because I literally could not comprehend what I believed to be your argument, and I wrote the "more layers" bit in a moment of feverish desperation.

 

I'm not trying to say 300 is some intricate, inscrutable Joycean masterpiece of symbolic structure or anything. I'm just saying that there are themes there. That is all, I swear to you.

[Dream]

Fair enough; my bad if I came off as a bit of a **** at the end there.

[BruceVC]

 

Oh god. This thread is still going?

Yep. Now it's about 300, and all the hidden significance within movies, and the effects of human psychological tendencies upon storytelling and historical accuracy.

 

 

I love these forums for many reasons, one of them being our ability to go off topic and still discuss interesting things

Edited May 15, 2013 by BruceVC

[Ffordesoon]

Fair enough; my bad if I came off as a bit of a **** at the end there.

No problem, man.

[TrashMan]

@Dream:

 

I don't have a degree in anything. :|

 

Why is this so hard to understand? I'm not saying "The red Spartan capes represent maternity" or some other insane thing. I'm not even arguing that it's anti-gay or pro-fascism or whatever. I haven't even seen the thing, if you'll recall! I'm only arguing the principle.

 

My only point - my only point! - is that the movie has themes. Whether they were put in there because they sounded good or because they meant something to the filmmakers is irrelevant. The point is, they are in the movie, if only because Gerard Butler has to scream something.

 

Why this seems to anger you is inexplicable to me.

 

 

Not speakign against you, but in a more general matter:

Movies have themes...more or less. But seeing something doesn't make it a theme.

 

It's like looking at a picture of clouds and noticing that one cloud kinda looks like a dong, thus concluding the artists is making a statement about dongs.

It's in may way projecting - like looking at an ink blob test. People notice things that may or may not even be there and make connection that were never planned by the author.

 

Comepletey ignoring any movie analysis is wrong. Over-analyzing is even worse.

At the end of the day, I'm not overly concerend with symbolism in movies. Never was. Most of the time it feels like a cheap way to add fake depth.

 

What makes or breaks any movie or book for me is the story and characters.

[Badmojo]

I have been gone for what?  A month or two and people are still arguing about this?  That is just sad on so many levels.

[BruceVC]

I have been gone for what?  A month or two and people are still arguing about this?  That is just sad on so many levels.

 

And once again we are debating a topic that we find pertinent, no one is forcing you to comment or even read so I fail to see why it is sad because the last I checked I am  a happy person?

[Elerond]

I have been gone for what?  A month or two and people are still arguing about this?  That is just sad on so many levels.

 

This topic is only month old, so if you were gone month or two, so... maybe it was some other thread that you mix with this one

[motorizer]

I have been gone for what?  A month or two and people are still arguing about this?  That is just sad on so many levels.

I come here because it's the most popular thread...seems like the place to be

[Ffordesoon]

@motorizer:

 

Oh yeah, it's the happeningest party in town.

 

We've got people talking past each other, walls of text, poor word choice, random detours into Game Of Thrones and 300... It is a veritable potpourri of confusion, outrage, and confused outrage.

 

JOIN US!

Edited May 16, 2013 by Ffordesoon

[Gfted1]

Where are all the white knights to protest the topless Cean Gula? Its totally unrealistic that any monster would go into battle topless and I can clearly see the breast shape. HORROR!

[Lephys]

Where are all the white knights to protest the topless Cean Gula? Its totally unrealistic that any monster would go into battle topless and I can clearly see the breast shape. HORROR!

I'm actually just angry that she doesn't have a form-fitting breastplate on.

 

Let no female torso go unplated!

 

*begins making picket signs*

 

[LadyCrimson]

Where are all the white knights to protest the topless Cean Gula? Its totally unrealistic that any monster would go into battle topless and I can clearly see the breast shape. HORROR!

Only evil and/or not-human characters are allowed to be topless, y'know. And tribal women in National Geographic.

[Gfted1]

[Lephys]

Only evil and/or not-human characters are allowed to be topless, y'know. And tribal women in National Geographic.

They should probably be forced to wear a scarlet letter-I on their person at all times (for "Indecent"), to really reinforce the game's themes. u_u

[Ulquiorra]

 

Only evil and/or not-human characters are allowed to be topless, y'know. And tribal women in National Geographic.

 

 

 

 

Is she also a tribal women ?!

 

 

I hope so ..

[Elerond]

Humoristic post that somewhat touch this topic. Some viewer discretion is advised (nothing more what you see in many MMORPGs)

http://repair-her-armor.tumblr.com/post/50474510652/clothes-im-forced-to-wear-in-the-majority-of-mmorpgs

 

 

And what comes to blood witch, I don't have any problems with nudity (female or male), altough I don't know anything about what blood witches will be like in the game, so I can't promise that I will not have problems with them, but that is potential topic for future. But if they say lingerie is female/male version of armour which looks like normal armour when character from other gender wear it. Also I have some issues with illogical/inconsistent use of magic as reason for things.

[Lurky]

Where are all the white knights to protest the topless Cean Gula? Its totally unrealistic that any monster would go into battle topless and I can clearly see the breast shape. HORROR!

 

Well, clearly the proper answer is "Does she have a physical body that would benefit from extra protection? Does she even have any kind of survival instinct that would compel her to protect herself in battle, being undead and all? Then the laws of realism aren't the same as for alive human warriors, are they?"

 

Seriously though, I think that the "take realism into account and make sensible female clothing" is a good point, one that is worth putting out there. But it doesn't have to be an absolute rule, just one more criterion that artists should have in their mental space when designing this stuff, and sometimes the defenders can lose perspective when upholding this position. If you take these discussions as a "hey, please don't forget about this" pleading rather than any crusade or moral imposition, you'll get to endure these people far better. It's what I do when these discussions get heated, as they often do. And it's closer to the truth, too; once people see that it's taken into account, suddenly you find out that they're much more calm when the occasional boob is shown, as it's the case here

 

Additionally, if you don't care about the realism argument, or if it doesn't apply to the setting, skimpy clothing can be criticized for other reasons too, such as unoriginality. Why is it that when an artist chooses to go for aesthetics over function, female clothing is made sexy more often than not? There are so many other ways to do that! Look at this concept art, for example; it's designed for coolness rather than realism, but the females aren't sexified, and they're distinguishable. So there's that, too.

 

And lastly, there's also the argument of self-identification. Some people just like their characters to dress as they would, and like the characters of the world to reflect that. Sure, you can say "well, the world doesn't have to cater to your tastes, and not all characters have to be ones you can identify with or relate to", but you can also say "well, the world doesn't have to cater to your tastes either, and not all characters have to be ones you can ogle". How about a compromise, instead of constantly trying to defeat the other side? Surely it can't be that terrible to give way a tiny little, if it lets other people have more fun?

 

Of course, this is all a moot point. The art of PE seems to have done the impossible, which is making people of all these groups reasonably happy. The only complain I still see is that's it's kind of dull, but I guess that once the bases are set, you can add spice on top of that more easily. But hey, this is the most popular thread around. I wanted to have my say too

[Lephys]

Of course, this is all a moot point. The art of PE seems to have done the impossible, which is making people of all these groups reasonably happy. The only complain I still see is that's it's kind of dull, but I guess that once the bases are set, you can add spice on top of that more easily. But hey, this is the most popular thread around. I wanted to have my say too

Yeah, I think they've done quite a good job with what we've seen thus far. And, in response to its perceived dullness, I'd just like to say that what's been shown so far is plain, methinks, rather than dull. I'm sure there will be plenty of embellishment for the armor and equipment (that's optional), but I don't foresee an inherent world full of people who all look like Ronin Warriors (from the anime cartoon... although I wouldn't want to see the entire world be made out of people who ALL look like actual ronin warriors, either, heh).

[BruceVC]

 

 

Only evil and/or not-human characters are allowed to be topless, y'know. And tribal women in National Geographic.

 

 

 

 

Is she also a tribal women ?!

 

 

I hope so ..

 

 

Wow, that lady is smoking hot . I hope one of my party members looks like that