Orogun01 Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 snip They got the beard wrong. Can Ubisoft do anything right? On their defense, hair is very difficult to do. I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"* *If you can't tell, it's you.
Bartimaeus Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 (edited) Realistically though, the good teachers just focus on helping whoever needs it the most, regardless of race or gender. Do they? Some teachers (maybe even the majority, but I can't say for certain, but the majority would be my experience) seem to focus on helping whoever will accept and benefit from the help the most, not necessarily those who actually need it the most. The two aren't always necessarily mutually exclusive, but they all too often don't overlap at all...and upon reflection, that's not really all too surprising, as already good students will draw praise and special (positive) attention from their teachers, while chronically struggling students very often have behavioral problems that make some/most teachers (understandably) want as little to do with them as possible. Does that make those teachers bad? Personally, I don't really think so...but then again, I don't feel as though it's primarily the teacher's responsibility to fix/deal with behavioral issues to begin with. Of course, if neither teachers nor parents will/can do anything to help those with those kinds of issues work through/around their issues, then they are pretty much screwed...but what is a teacher supposed to do about that when they've already got so much on their plate? Life, unfortunately, is often (pretty much always, actually) terribly unfair... Edited November 4, 2015 by Bartimaeus 1 Quote How I have existed fills me with horror. For I have failed in everything - spelling, arithmetic, riding, tennis, golf; dancing, singing, acting; wife, mistress, whore, friend. Even cooking. And I do not excuse myself with the usual escape of 'not trying'. I tried with all my heart. In my dreams, I am not crippled. In my dreams, I dance.
Darkpriest Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 not sure if this was here already, but SJW awakens in SW industry world :D https://www.yahoo.com/tv/s/rumor-disney-retire-star-wars-172900640.html
Amentep Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 To be completely honest, I've always been surprised at how the Leia-in-the-hutt-slave-outfit became the go-to outfit for merchandising. For me white outfit from the first movie is more what I think of when I think of the character. Slave outfit is about as representative of the character as the award ceremony dress. Yeah its there for a reason in the story, but its about as representative of the the day-to-day of the character as Carbonite is to Han. I cannot - yet I must. How do you calculate that? At what point on the graph do "must" and "cannot" meet? Yet I must - but I cannot! ~ Ro-Man
Darkpriest Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 I agree with representation, but i think that most women like to be sexy and like their idols sexy too. Why not to keep both? I mean... why forcefully remove something that was in the story in the movies. Some like to be the strong leader some like to be "slave girls" it's not that hard to comprehend. Same as some men like to be Conan, some like to be Legolas and some like to be an orc or a dwarf or even a goblin. *sighs*
Volourn Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 She friggin' murders the Hutt in that outfit. It showed that she was strong and capable of defending herself - even when chained up and belittled. Instead of trying to erase it they should be using it to empower it. Also, from what i've seen, no girl or woman has EVER been forced to buy/wear the outfit (outside the characetr on screen for obvious reasons). \But, nazi SJWs will be nazi SJWs. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
Meshugger Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 I can only laugh by now. All the values brought by the flower power-generation is being effectively being undone before our eyes. Ban anything fun and make everything political; all while applauded by the youth. What a time to be alive. "Some men see things as they are and say why?""I dream things that never were and say why not?"- George Bernard Shaw"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."- Friedrich Nietzsche "The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." - Some guy
Amentep Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 (edited) I agree with representation, but i think that most women like to be sexy and like their idols sexy too. Why not to keep both? I mean... why forcefully remove something that was in the story in the movies. Some like to be the strong leader some like to be "slave girls" it's not that hard to comprehend. Same as some men like to be Conan, some like to be Legolas and some like to be an orc or a dwarf or even a goblin. *sighs* Sure, but literal a few years ago the only Leia toy you could find was her in the slave outfit. There was an outcry and I think they did the awards ceremony dress. So what some people are reporting as an attempt to remove the slave outfit may actually be an attempt to redress the balance that has been out-of-whack. In a perfect world the Slave Leia outfit would be one of many outfits for Leia toys. She friggin' murders the Hutt in that outfit. It showed that she was strong and capable of defending herself - even when chained up and belittled. Instead of trying to erase it they should be using it to empower it. Also, from what i've seen, no girl or woman has EVER been forced to buy/wear the outfit (outside the characetr on screen for obvious reasons). \But, nazi SJWs will be nazi SJWs. No one is forced to buy anything. But as I mentioned for a few years if you did want to buy something your option was Slave Leia or nothing else. And sure, in the context of the movie she kills Jabba in that outfit. After being captured by him in the first place and forced into the outfit. But yeah you can still swing that to be positive in a way. But toys divorce themselves from the context, so at some point the toy is a woman in a space bikini. Not that there is anything wrong with that. And if a woman chooses to dress like that for cosplay - more power to them. I don't think Slave Leia should be banned anymore than I think it should be the only Leia-based product available. Edited November 4, 2015 by Amentep I cannot - yet I must. How do you calculate that? At what point on the graph do "must" and "cannot" meet? Yet I must - but I cannot! ~ Ro-Man
Oerwinde Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 I always though Leia's best outfit was her Empire Strikes Back outfit. The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity.
Volourn Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 "After being captured by him in the first place and forced into the outfit. " As opposed to being capture by the Hutt and almost frozen for etenrity and actually needing to be rescued like somebody else? COME ON. That's the problem with SJW Nazis - they never want to see women shown in a bad situation - it's strength all the time but who cares if a man is shown weak. LMAO EVIL. "anymore than I think it should be the only Leia-based product available." \Chances are it is what likely sells since that is what people - men and women - think of. Her choking Hutt out in the outfit is a classic memorable scene. You think anzi SJWs would love that but hey the people who claim you 'should judge someone by what they wear is judging someone by what theyw ear'. LMAO Probably the same Nazi SJWs who rushed out to slobber over Magic Mike. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
Amentep Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 (edited) That was like a white jump suit? Or the burgandy-brown dress w/pants and a shawl thing she had on in Cloud City? (If I remember correctly - its been a startling number of years since I've seen Empire). \Chances are it is what likely sells since that is what people - men and women - think of. Her choking Hutt out in the outfit is a classic memorable scene. You think anzi SJWs would love that but hey the people who claim you 'should judge someone by what they wear is judging someone by what theyw ear'. LMAO Probably the same Nazi SJWs who rushed out to slobber over Magic Mike. Does it sell because that's what people want or does it sell because that's all they have?Probably a bit of both. Edited November 4, 2015 by Amentep I cannot - yet I must. How do you calculate that? At what point on the graph do "must" and "cannot" meet? Yet I must - but I cannot! ~ Ro-Man
Volourn Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 (edited) If Disney had thoguht other outfits would sell as much they would have gladly made them available. This is only an issue because of nazi SJWs which usually whine about things they would likely never purchase in the first place. Edited November 4, 2015 by Volourn DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
Amentep Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 If Disney had thoguht other outfits would sell as much they would have gladly made them available. This is only an issue because of nazi SJWs which usually whine about things they would likely never purchase in the first place. The period I'm talking about was pre-Disney buyout so they had no influence on the toys. Now that they do, they're making other outfits available (Leia in Disney Infinity, for example, has the white outfit and the bounty hunter outfit). Not that any of that matters, I guess... I cannot - yet I must. How do you calculate that? At what point on the graph do "must" and "cannot" meet? Yet I must - but I cannot! ~ Ro-Man
Nonek Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 Personally I thought Kate Bush was a far better...marital aid in her Babooshka video. Quite an experience to live in misery isn't it? That's what it is to be married with children.I've seen things you people can't even imagine. Pearly Kings glittering on the Elephant and Castle, Morris Men dancing 'til the last light of midsummer. I watched Druid fires burning in the ruins of Stonehenge, and Yorkshiremen gurning for prizes. All these things will be lost in time, like alopecia on a skinhead. Time for tiffin. Tea for the teapot!
Barothmuk Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 (edited) I can understand the sentiment. The way the outfit was marketed always seemed to treat it as some kind of "fun" and "sexy" attire as opposed to something that was forced upon the character whilst she was in sexual slavery. I can only laugh by now. All the values brought by the flower power-generation is being effectively being undone before our eyes. Ban anything fun and make everything political; all while applauded by the youth. What a time to be alive.That was a key part of the second-wave though. "The personal is political" Edited November 4, 2015 by Barothmuk
Volourn Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 K. I'm sure LA would have been glad to put her in other outfits if it would make them tons of money. 1 DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
Oerwinde Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 That was like a white jump suit? Or the burgandy-brown dress w/pants and a shawl thing she had on in Cloud City? (If I remember correctly - its been a startling number of years since I've seen Empire). The jumpsuit and vest with the crown braid is what I was talking about, but the cloud city outfit was good too. The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity.
Elerond Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 K. I'm sure LA would have been glad to put her in other outfits if it would make them tons of money. Lucas refused to sell his studios games in Steam or other digital stores because he was so hang up in the past or some other reason other than making money. Also Lucas seemed to be keen to do edits in his films that have made fans and other people less likely buy edited versions of his films than originals. And he also was responsible for prequels. So I am not as confident his money making abilities as you are. Because he has long history of not so great decisions.
Ganrich Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 K. I'm sure LA would have been glad to put her in other outfits if it would make them tons of money. Lucas refused to sell his studios games in Steam or other digital stores because he was so hang up in the past or some other reason other than making money. Also Lucas seemed to be keen to do edits in his films that have made fans and other people less likely buy edited versions of his films than originals. And he also was responsible for prequels. So I am not as confident his money making abilities as you are. Because he has long history of not so great decisions. You forgot toys, t-shirts, etc. You know, merchandising? The movies, games, and even books don't hold a candle to the money made on merchandise. Lucas knows what he is doing when it comes to money. He has shown bad decisions at making a quality product. Something being of high quality doesn't mean it makes tons of money. He made those 3 prequels to bring relevance back to the franchise and increase merchandise revenue. It worked.
Volourn Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 "And he also was responsible for prequels. So I am not as confident his money making abilities as you are. Because he has long history of not so great decisions." Your personal opinion on the quality of the prequels is irrelevant. They made tons of money. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
Blarghagh Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 +1 to Volo. The Star Wars prequels printed money, especially the first of them which is generally considered the worst.
Bartimaeus Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 (edited) I...uh...actually liked the Phantom Menace the most out of three. Now, I'm not saying it was a GOOD movie...gosh, no...but uh...Liam Neeson + Ewan McGregor kinda just carried the movie for me - Liam Neeson especially. Which is funny, because Neeson's character seems to literally lack any sort of functioning brain matter of any quantity at some parts...but nevertheless, he plays the part well. Yeah, kid Anakin sucks, Jar Jar sucks, Padme sucks...but the thing is, Padme and adult Anakin continue to suck it up for the entire rest of the next two movies, too, and there's no Liam Neeson in either of those to numb the sting any! In fact, they suck it up more in the latter two movies than the two of them and Jar Jar did in the first movie. But hey, that's just me. Edited November 5, 2015 by Bartimaeus Quote How I have existed fills me with horror. For I have failed in everything - spelling, arithmetic, riding, tennis, golf; dancing, singing, acting; wife, mistress, whore, friend. Even cooking. And I do not excuse myself with the usual escape of 'not trying'. I tried with all my heart. In my dreams, I am not crippled. In my dreams, I dance.
Hiro Protagonist Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 I've heard some people watch the movies in this order. IV A new Hope, V Empire, then II and III as a flash back for Vader when you find out who he is, and then VI to finish it off. It erases the first movie all together.
Blarghagh Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 Why not just skip the prequels alltogether, then? It's not like II and III are any good. I...uh...actually liked the Phantom Menace the most out of three. Now, I'm not saying it was a GOOD movie...gosh, no...but uh...Liam Neeson + Ewan McGregor kinda just carried the movie for me - Liam Neeson especially. Which is funny, because Neeson's character seems to literally lack any sort of functioning brain matter of any quantity at some parts...but nevertheless, he plays the part well. Yeah, kid Anakin sucks, Jar Jar sucks, Padme sucks...but the thing is, Padme and adult Anakin continue to suck it up for the entire rest of the next two movies, too, and there's no Liam Neeson in either of those to numb the sting any! In fact, they suck it up more in the latter two movies than the two of them and Jar Jar did in the first movie. But hey, that's just me. I actually agree with you. Of the three movies, I also feel Phantom Menace comes closest to capturing the feel of adventure that the others had. And while I realize why people find Jar Jar annoying, he never bothered me quite as much. Probably because I was really young when I saw it the first time and I had no expectations of this movie being a serious space drama like some people did. I didn't have a history of growing up with Star Wars, so it was just a movie 11-year-old me saw with spaceships that happened to have a silly alien. I didn't start to appreciate the other Star Wars movies until after.
Darkpriest Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 I've heard some people watch the movies in this order. IV A new Hope, V Empire, then II and III as a flash back for Vader when you find out who he is, and then VI to finish it off. It erases the first movie all together. Interesting way, TBH the first movie seems a bit out of place. It does tell us of the Anakin's origin and the initial manipulations of the would be emperor, but I do not feel that it's critical to the plot line, especially with all that jar-jar and naboo crap.
Recommended Posts