Vaderisnothayden

It's because Vader's important, thus focus on Vader. I don't rate Hayden, so I don't put the focus on Hayden.

vote_for_palpatine said:

The title sounds contradictory, but what I mean is "women considered hot by general sentiment". I refrained from adding that because the title is too long as it is.

1) Evangeline Lilly

 

I don't know what I'm missing here. I mean, I see what everyone sees, but for me it's like she's less than the sum of her parts.

2) Taylor Swift

 

This is entirely different than the Evangeline Lilly situation. She's too thin, too angular, and her eyes are too small for my taste.

3) Kristen Bell

 

I just don't see it. This picture is the best one I found and there have got to be dozens of prettier actresses than KB, even at her best.

4) Jennifer Aniston

 

Granted, her body smokes. But never once, not in the peak of her Friends days, did I look at that dudish face and think, "Beauty".

5) Sarah Michelle Gellar

 

Except for her years on All My Children, I've never been impressed. Nice picture there, though, I'll admit.

6) Drew Barrymore

 

I keep a picture of her in my first aid kit in case I accidentally swallow poison. It's cheaper than Ipecac.

7) Katherine Heigl

 

Pretty, but definitely overrated. Same problem as Sarah Michelle Gellar.

8) Cameron Diaz

 

Meh.

I tried to round this out to an even ten but my mind has stopped working for the moment. I'm sure you all will jog my memory.

 

I find Lilly and Bell and Aniston attractive. I'm not going crazy about them, but yes attractive. And likable onscreen apart from that. Sarah Michelle Gellar I find somewhat attractive but not really my type, but I'm a fan of hers because of her acting, which is seriously underrated. I don't get people being attracted to Heigl. She gives me a pain. I don't know much about Taylor Swift, but she looks attractive enough. I don't see how her eyes are small. They look pretty big to me. Not interested in Diaz. I don't find Barrymore attractive.

Looking at some of the other women people have brought up:

As for Megan Fox, I find her offputting. Same for Angelina Jolie, though she has more acting ability than Fox.

Sarah Jessica Parker doesn't do it for me.

Paris Hilton? I really don't get the attraction there.

Pam Anderson? Yeeks. Why was she considered attractive?

Maggie Gyllenhaal and Katie Holmes don't attract me either. Nor Sienna Miller. I prefer the other British Sienna, Sienna Guillory, who's very attractive.

As for 7 of 9/Jeri Ryan, I agree with the "barf". I'm not fond of the actress (her acting bothers me a good deal) and don't find her attractive at all. The character was horrendous and the outfit they had her in was sexist. The character seemed designed to be a sex object without much real personality except a dose of off-putting nastiness.  It doesn't say much for Trek viewers that she was the most popular character on Trek's most popular show.

It's disturbing to see people being ok with the misogyny in the review. But it's not surprising, because people in general need a lot more educating about the topic of misogyny. Lack of awareness and lack of understanding are major obstacles in fighting misogyny.

As for my saying women would be more likely to be bothered by the "humor" than men, I in way indicated that all women would feel one way or all men would feel another. Women and men are individuals. They all have their own individual reactions to things. For example, some men will be bothered by the "humor" and some women will like it. That said, not being the target of misogyny, men sometimes find it easier to be less offended by it (and having wives and mothers and sisters and daughters doesn't change that, because most men have some or all those people in their lives). The point was if it were targeted at you, you might find it not so funny or acceptable.

Humor doesn't excuse absolutely everything and nor does playing roles or whatever shit a person might want to try. What you find worthy of being presented as humor says something about you. And some things should not normally be used for humor.

Bingowings said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Bingowings said:

The humour is only misogynist if he is being serious, which clearly he isn't.

As to bad taste that's subjective (just like his opinions).

As I said earlier there is a difference between Warren Mitchell playing a bigot and Warren Mitchell being a bigot.

Certain types of things are misogynistic even when they're meant as humor. The humor here is clearly misogynistic. Clearly he is not being serious about keeping women tied up in his basement, but putting it forward as a joke is misogynistic. And humor is often used as cover for bigotry, such as in various comedians' routines -fake bigotry that really is real bigotry.

What utter twaddle.

So The Great Dictator is a pro-fascist film?

The French and Saunders Silence Of The Lambs skits are psychotic traits?

I suppose Withnail And I is a two hour advert for alcoholism.

Did I say it was the case for all works? Nope. Not all humor is the same thing or works the same way. Some satire is just satire and some satire is just cover for bigotry. Just because it's true of one work doesn't mean it's true of another. Like I said, I never said it applied to all works, so it's unfair to act as if I did. But RedLetter watchamacallim's humor is certainly misogynistic. Making jokes like that is misogynistic. "It's a joke" is the constant excuse people hide behind when their bigoted "jokes" are criticised. It doesn't wash. I think if the posters here included more women you'd find a higher proportion of people here offended by his "humor" because men on average find it easier to avoid being offended by misogyny and to refuse to acknowledge when misogyny is afoot. Put it simply, if you were a woman you might not be so ok with his "humor".

Bingowings said:

The humour is only misogynist if he is being serious, which clearly he isn't.

As to bad taste that's subjective (just like his opinions).

As I said earlier there is a difference between Warren Mitchell playing a bigot and Warren Mitchell being a bigot.

Certain types of things are misogynistic even when they're meant as humor. The humor here is clearly misogynistic. Clearly he is not being serious about keeping women tied up in his basement, but putting it forward as a joke is misogynistic. And humor is often used as cover for bigotry, such as in various comedians' routines -fake bigotry that really is real bigotry.

Yeah, Darth Bane's story is part of the backstory Lucas invented for TPM and the PT and nothing about the PT story seems to work very well.

Not really. I don't watch Simpsons so I don't know this professor Frink. I was thinking more of a Frink-dog. And my leg was well-covered. Some dogs are just determined.

Oh god, now he's trying to hump my leg. Somebody call the dog catchers.

You know, Frink, you're like one of these little dogs that follow people around barking frantically at their heels. Following me around the boards trying to get my attention.

There's only 3 Star Wars films.

HotRod said:

is so shit!

 

That's all

 "Stop moaning".

none said:

Interview: http://www.heebmagazine.com/blog/view/2491

There's an official site.  http://redlettermedia.com/ 

Also seems to be the individual behind 'The United States of Noooo!!!'

He seems to hold to the conventional view that ROTS was the best of the prequels. It was the worst and considering it better is giving Lucas too much credit.

I found his humor often distasteful and misogynistic.

Thanks for the links, none. :)

Chewtobacca said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Oh yes it was.  Writing a word in capitals has nothing to do with how it is phrased.  Phrasing has to do with the words used, not the orthography.

Now that's getting pedantically literal. You know what I meant.

No; I didn't know what you meant.  You said it wasn't phrased as a factual statement, and by the laws of English grammar it was.  I can't think of a more clear-cut case of having been proven wrong. 

Vaderisnothayden said:

So don't go lecturing me.

No; I won't.  You defend yourself over-aggressively, so I've no wish to talk to you further.  You're on my ignore list from now on.  No doubt you'll do the same, so that's an end to the matter.

 God, what a friendly person.

No; I didn't know what you meant.  You said it wasn't phrased as a factual statement, and by the laws of English grammar it was.  I can't think of a more clear-cut case of having been proven wrong.

Again, being too pedantic and literal. If you're going to take that sort of approach no wonder you didn't understand what I was saying, this time or the original time.

Chewtobacca said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

 It wasn't phrased as a neutral factual statement.

Oh yes it was.  Writing a word in capitals has nothing to do with how it is phrased.  Phrasing has to do with the words used, not the orthography.

 

Vaderisnothayden said:

 The stress on the "is" indicated that I was arguing a contentious point, some that needed to be defended and fought for, rather than merely providing information.

Using capitals usually means the opposite.  Example: You ARE wrong.  I'm certainly not trying to signal that this statement is contentious, quite the opposite:  it comes across as, "I know better and the capitals emphasise the fact."

Neither I, nor TV's Frink, nor anyone else read your post as anything other than a factual statement meant to correct the person you quoted.  If you wish to provide clues, you might you might wish to be clearer in future, for those of us who don't share your obscure writing style.

Vaderisnothayden said:

 It wasn't phrased as a neutral factual statement.

Oh yes it was.  Writing a word in capitals has nothing to do with how it is phrased.  Phrasing has to do with the words used, not the orthography.

Now that's getting pedantically literal. You know what I meant.

Using capitals usually means the opposite.  Example: You ARE wrong.  I'm certainly not trying to signal that this statement is contentious, quite the opposite:  it comes across as, "I know better and the capitals emphasise the fact."

Putting it in capitals indicated I had a reason to stress it. If it were merely a matter of informing somebody Lucasfilm considers the PT to be EU then I would have no need to stress anything. I could merely state it neutrally. That I stressed it hinted at the fact that I had something personal I was pushing, not merely info on Lucasfilm's views. In reading posts you need to learn to pick up on subtleties.

Neither I, nor TV's Frink, nor anyone else read your post as anything other than a factual statement meant to correct the person you quoted. 

How do you know what everyone else who's read this page thought? Have you done a poll? And actually I'm not so sure Frink interpreted it the way you did. He indicated above that he that he knew that I knew the official definition of the EU, so, unlike you, he did not think I was making "a honest mistake" (as I think you put it) and that I simply did not know the official Lucasfilm position. If I knew the official Lucasfilm then obviously I wasn't just making a factual statement.

If you wish to provide clues, you might you might wish to be clearer in future, for those of us who don't share your obscure writing style.

What I said was clear enough. If we're going to go telling people to be clearer we'd have to do it to everybody, because everybody is misunderstood on internet boards. On any one thread I repeatedly have to work hard to make sure I've got the right interpretation of various posts when there could be more than one interpretation of what they meant. So don't go lecturing me.

Akwat Kbrana said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Expanded universes are an idea that exists outside Star wars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanded_universe We can thus acknowledge the existence of a Star wars eu without having to follow Lucasfilm's definition of it.

And you go by wikipedia's definition of eu? How follow-the-herd.

 No, they go by mine.

Chewtobacca said:

Bingowings said:

Seeing as this is a discussion board it would be beneficial if we assumed that all posts were from "a certain point of view" unless stated otherwise.

It's a real pain whenever someone chirps in and vents a built up frustration about the perceived haughtiness of a postee based on their non-disclosure of their humble or honest opinion or personal view (IMHO) ;-)

On a discussion board, people will always post both factual statements and opinions, and it does not seem at all beneficial me to treat what sound like factual statements as opinions.  I don't see that any "perceived haughtiness" was at work here: what sounded for all the world like a factual statement quite naturally provoked a correction because it was phrased in a categorical way. 

 It wasn't phrased as a neutral factual statement. That would have been "PT is eu". Instead I said "PT IS eu". The stress on the "is" indicated that I was arguing a contentious point, some that needed to be defended and fought for, rather than merely providing information. If I was merely stating what I thought was the accepted orthodox position I would not have needed that stress on the "is". One could still misread it as merely attempting to go by the orthodox position, but the clue was there. And this is OT.com, where people choose to reject the PT. It's not a big jump in thinking to recognize my statement as more of that. And many people on this board are familiar with my posting and views. They know I reject the pt and that I am aware of the official definition and that I wouldn't be making a big mistake like that and that I would be likely to state pt-rejecting views.

TV's Frink said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Chewtobacca said:

That was neither clear nor obvious to me as an impartial observer.  Your post stating, "TPM IS eu," came across as a simple factual correction to the poster before you.  You did not preface the statement with a phrase, such as "from my point of view" or "it could be argued", that might have made it clear that you were rejecting the accepted definition of EU. 

I had exactly the same thought as TV's Frink when I saw your post.  If he had not posted a link to a definition, I would have been sorely tempted to do so. 

That would have been assuming I was too dumb to know the official definition of EU.  I try to avoid making such assumptions about people when there's another obvious explanation. Like if you didn't assume I was dumb you'd figure I knew the official version and was discarding it. The view that the pt is eu despite Lucasfilm's view is common enough. 

VINH (see, I'm using your correct name now, as you are using mine), I appreciate that you are acknowledging my presence once again (no sarcasm intended).  I apologized for my childish name calling and I shall do so again here.

However, I continue to insist that you are too sensitive for your own good.  My linking to the Wookieepedia article was not an attempt to call you "dumb."  Believe me, I have read plenty of your posts on the EU to know that you are familiar with the official definition.  I just didn't feel like typing out a long argument on the subject.  And frankly, I knew it would annoy you a little, again, because you are too sensitive.

I really think you take yourself too seriously in these debates.  I will continue to make fun of you (and similar posters like skyjedi) because I do not take these debates too seriously.  I know my teasing will continue to "offend" you, but there's little I can do about that.  But I will refrain from calling you names again.

The PT kicks the OT's ass!!!!!!!!!!! (kidding)

-TVF

 

Taking things seriously is not a crime. Far more offensive is going around sniggering at other posters, insulting them or criticising them. It seems pretty weird to me that the former should be considered unacceptable and the latter ok. 

I just didn't feel like typing out a long argument on the subject.  And frankly, I knew it would annoy you a little, again, because you are too sensitive.

Please drop this myth that I get offended by people just disagreeing with me. Had you merely disagreed with me, such as saying you didn't believe the PT should be called EU and saying you believed we should stick to the official definition of the eu, I would have disagreed with you, but I would not have gotten offended.

I don't think it's your buisiness to criticise me, nor do I think you have license to poke fun at me. (And you have done a lot worse than merely "tease".)

Chewtobacca said:

Vaderisnothayden said: I took his post to be a sneer at me, implying I didn't know what I was talking about while deliberately ignoring the obvious fact that I was clearly rejecting the official definition of the eu. Hence the herd-following comment.

That was neither clear nor obvious to me as an impartial observer.  Your post stating, "TPM IS eu," came across as a simple factual correction to the poster before you.  You did not preface the statement with a phrase, such as "from my point of view" or "it could be argued", that might have made it clear that you were rejecting the accepted definition of EU. 

I had exactly the same thought as TV's Frink when I saw your post.  If he had not posted a link to a definition, I would have been sorely tempted to do so. 

That would have been assuming I was too dumb to know the official definition of EU.  I try to avoid making such assumptions about people when there's another obvious explanation. Like if you didn't assume I was dumb you'd figure I knew the official version and was discarding it. The view that the pt is eu despite Lucasfilm's view is common enough. 

zombie84 said:

Um, the EU really isn't up for debate on its definition, its the "expanded universe" which makes it everything that isn't the films. You can chose to ignore whatever films you like, for instance the OT is clearly a seperate story reality from the PT to some, but this is a different matter. To say defining something that is "EU" as "EU" is "following the herd" is a bit stupid since LFL are the ones who coined the very term "expanded universe" to describe the extra-film stories. I mean, by this logic using the very term "EU" is following the herd since you are abiding by the company terminology. What you really mean is that you acknowledge certain story elements and not others. EU is just the label ascribed to the merchandise that isn't an episodic film.

Expanded universes are an idea that exists outside Star wars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanded_universe We can thus acknowledge the existence of a Star wars eu without having to follow Lucasfilm's definition of it. We can draw our own lines dividing EU off from core material without following theirs. To many people, the PT is eu, which I think is being quite generous to it. As it stands, the eu's definition is often debated and its boundaries are not universallly seen as being so clear-cut as you describe them. The status of novelizations and ewok movies and whatnot is much debated in Star wars fandom. Also relevant here is that there's a personal conflict involved here in that this comes on the end of a weeks-long conflict between me and TV's Frink on the off-topic board. Being used to sneers from him, I took his post to be a sneer at me, implying I didn't know what I was talking about while deliberately ignoring the obvious fact that I was clearly rejecting the official definition of the eu. Hence the herd-following comment.

vote_for_palpatine said:

**** out of ****

I think it's OK to curse here, dude. My suggestion: "Fuck" out of "shit".

 lol

ABC said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

ABC said:

C3PX said:

On the contrary my dear friend! I believe the "r" is quite UNnecessary. FInk!

 Ion Man ? Mmmhh... Why not.

__

Still, here again a new american cinema shit. (Is that racist?... Don't mind. Oh! About that, what about the US law wich obligates Hollywood & Co to have at least one black man/woman to appear in the films... I don't call that racism, I call that Hypocrisis).

Fools !

 Is there actually such a law or did you just mean that figuratively?

 I couldn't say if it's a "real" law from the outside or if it is imposed by the companies to the filmmakers, what may look the same. So yes, I mean it. I forgot to precise it has to happen in the firsts -or seconds- roles, it's not just about a minor character you would almost not see in the background.

Are you judging this only by deduction based on the films that come out or are you working off some information (inside or otherwise) that informs you that the studios have such a rule?

TV's Frink said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

TPM IS eu.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Eu

 And you go by wookieepedia's definition of eu? How follow-the-herd.

TPM IS eu.

I strongly object to the view that the death penalty should be used for child rapists. Using the death penalty for anything but murder is an abuse. Death only for death. And even then the death penalty should be used sparingly.

Except that the Spider Man movies are total horse shit.