Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
scalliano

a bunch of dumbasses argue about Duke Nukem

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

No. That is just the norm. So far, the industry has been mostly paying lip service to progressive causes, but remains firmly and deeply conservative to its core. Thor: Ragnarok is still a Thor movie, even if Valkyrie can take care of herself and is not Thor's love interest.

Yes, paying lip service. Everything I've described above ties into that.

40 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

I doubt that.

Disney Star Wars, 007: No Time To Die, MOTU: Revelations, The Last of Us Part II...

37 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

Also, you might want to refrain from referring to a character as "vanilla", as this is sounding dangerously close like a bigoted dogwhistle, especially after your random jab at Tessa Thompson.

I'm not using any language that hasn't been used by those who support what Hollywood is doing, which is why I used quotation marks. Besides, you're the one who brought up race and sexuality which basically tells me everything I need to know. I just think she's annoying.

42 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

Utter reactionary nonsense. Boys never had it better in terms of role models.

Examples?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Rudolph said:

No. That is just the norm. So far, the industry has been mostly paying lip service to progressive causes, but remains firmly and deeply conservative to its core. Thor: Ragnarok is still a Thor movie, even if Valkyrie can take care of herself and is not Thor's love interest.

But Thor:Ragnarok is very much removed from the original Marvel Thor's which were a lot more serious in nature.

1 hour ago, Rudolph said:

Also, you might want to refrain from referring to a character as "vanilla", as this is sounding dangerously close like a bigoted dogwhistle, especially after your random jab at Tessa Thompson.

Who is condescending now?

 

15 minutes ago, scalliano said:

Examples?

Cobra Kai was mentioned. But if that's a guy-positive role model? Dunno.

 

Then again i don't think folks like Cpt America are good rolemodels either. They are incredibly buffed up, suggesting that being an hero requires this kind of physique to work. A proper guy role model would step away from the Dudebro cliche and instead explore how boys need to uphold that tough-man persona for no reason other than that is ingrained in society.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, scalliano said:

Yes, paying lip service. Everything I've described above ties into that.

Nope. Paying lip service means that it is not an actual subversion and the norm is maintained.

 

50 minutes ago, scalliano said:

Disney Star Wars, 007: No Time To Die, MOTU: Revelations, The Last of Us Part II...

LOL. Of fucking course. The usual reactionary talking points.

 

Luke, Han and Leia were never supposed to be the main protagonists of the Sequel Trilogy: their respective actors were too old for that. Writers knew they had to include them somehow - otherwise, fans would have complained - and had to come up with reasons as to why they were not taking care of things. Now, the Sequels are a mess, there is no doubt about it, but this has nothing to do with your "war on boys" narrative, especially since two of the three protagonists are dudes and Rey needed to rely on them just as much they needed to rely on her.

 

James Bond is still the protagonist of No Time To Die and the story revolves around him: the new 007 is nothing more than his sidekick.

 

In addition to being a massive improvement over the original He-Man cartoon (a famously crypto-queer show made by a reportedly queer-friendly studio), Masters of the Universe: Revelations features some amazing masculine characters, such as a more emotionally complex Prince Adam, a more serious and introspective Orko, a conflicted Man At Arms, an actually competent Skeletor... Like, holy shit, dude. Did you even watch the show?

 

As for The Last of Us: Part II, Joel was always a selfish asshole - he murdered an entire hospital staff in a post-apocalyptic world just to save a girl he has grown attached to - and it is only fair that he would die at the hands of someone who is just as irrational as he was in the first game. Get over it.

 

50 minutes ago, scalliano said:

Examples?

In addition to Masters of the Universe: Revelations? Off the top of my head, Avatar: The Last Airbender, Steven Universe, BoJack Horseman, The Good Place, Brooklyn 99, Cobra Kai, Kipo and the Age of the Wonderbeasts, The Old Guard, Squid Game....

 

50 minutes ago, scalliano said:

Besides, you're the one who brought up race and sexuality

No, you brought up Tessa Thompson as the example of an annoying female sidekick that you think would ruin a Duke Nukem movie (not, you know, Duke Nukem himself)... when really, you could have gone with Shelly 'Bombshell' Harrison. I mean, given how the latter was portrayed in her eponymous debut title as well as Ion Fury, there is no way you could make her become Duke's love interest.

Edited by Rudolph

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Rudolph said:

It is also kind of sexist to imply that boys cannot look up to feminine characters. 

 

"Look up to" or "admire" and having them as a "role model" are two different things. Boys should indeed have male role models, primarily their own fathers.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, dasho said:

"Look up to" or "admire" and having them as a "role model" are two different things. Boys should indeed have male role models, primarily their own fathers.

Nope.

 

If anything, boys and men could greatly benefit from having feminine role models, particularly in these increasingly dark, violent and depressing times.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Rudolph said:

Nope.

 

If anything, boys and men could greatly benefit from having feminine role models, particularly in these increasingly dark times.

 

I'd say the results of having male role models gradually subverted have spoken for themselves, but you are free to be scared of whatever boogeyman pleases you.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Rudolph said:

Nope. Paying lip service means it is not an actual subversion and the norm is maintained.

It is an empty gesture to garner virtue points in lieu of actual decent storytelling. That's lip-service. Also, I'm at a loss to understand why subversion is mandatory.

3 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

LOL. Of fucking course. The usual reactionary talking points.

Oh, this is going to be fun...

4 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

Luke, Han and Leia were never supposed to be the main protagonists of the Sequel Trilogy: their respective actors have become too old for that. Writers knew they had to include them - otherwise, fans would have complained - and had to come up with reasons as to why they were not taking care of things.

Nobody said they were, how they were handled is kind of jarring - Luke is a loner hermit who's given up on life, Han is a deadbeat absent dad and as for Leia, I dunno what the hell they were thinking.

12 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

James Bond is still the protagonist of No Time To Die and the story revolves around him: the new 007 is his sidekick.

Spoiler

He's also dead.

 

14 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

In addition to being a massive improvement over the original He-Man cartoon (a famously crypto-queer show made by a reportedly queer-friendly studio), Masters of the Universe: Revelations features some amazing masculine characters - a more emotionally complex Prince Adam, a more serious and introspective Orko, a conflicted Man At Arms, an actually competent Skeletor... Like, holy shit, dude. Did you even watch the show?

Was Skeletor actually competent, or was it down to the fact that Adam was missing for half the series?

 

17 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

As for The Last of Us: Part II, Joel was always an asshole and it is only fair that he would die at the hands of someone as emotionally driven as he was in the first game. Get over it.

I'm absolutely on board with the idea that Joel had it coming and that his past would eventually catch up with him. What I'm not on board with is the series of coincidences and moments of sheer incompetence that ended up with him being unceremoniously battered to death with a golf club in the first 2 hours. And the game spending half of its runtime trying to manipulate the player into empathising with his killer. There isn't even any payoff. There is a way to handle the murder of a beloved character, and this ain't it.

22 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

In addition to Revelations? Avatar: The Last Airbender, Steven Universe, BoJack Horseman, The Good Place, Brooklyn 99, Cobra Kai, Kipo and the Age of the Wonderbeasts, Squid Game....

Granted, I'm not familiar with some of those, so benefit of the doubt. These are all original IPs, though (Cobra Kai notwithstanding).

24 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

No, you brought up Tessa Thompson, as the example of an annoying female sidekick that you think would ruin a Duke Nukem movie... when really, you could have gone with Shelly 'Bombshell' Harrison.

No, I brought up Tessa Thompson as an example of the type of annoying actress who might play the role of Duke's handler You could just as easily have someone like Phoebe Waller-Bridge. You read the race and sexuality into it. Also, Shelley is an annoying protagonist of her own IP. She doesn't have anyone to upstage.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, dasho said:

I'd say the results of having male role models gradually subverted have spoken for themselves

If your idea of a masculine role model is a domineering macho man, then I welcome it being phased out in favor of kinder, more empathetic and nurturing ones. You cannot defeat pandemics, global warming and economic collapse with bullets and verbal abuse.

Edited by Rudolph

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

If your idea of a masculine role model is a domineering macho man, then I welcome it being phased out in favor of kinder, more empathetic and nurturing ones.

 

If you've bought into the notion of 'toxic masculinity', i.e. that any displays of stoicism, strength, assertiveness, confrontation, and the like are inherently bad, then that's on you. I didn't claim that the proper role model was a "domineering macho man", so don't put words into my mouth.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

LOL. Of fucking course. The usual reactionary talking points.

I want the kind of ball you are using to play soccer with because this is moving the goalposts if i ever saw one.

 

You claimed Scaliano couldn't come up with 5 examples. So they gave 5 examples. Your next response is to ridicule the fact they came up with 5 examples.

 

They are literally acting on your request and your answer is mocking. That's really a respectable tactic in any discussion...

Quote

As for The Last of Us: Part II, Joel was always a selfish asshole - he murdered an entire hospital staff in a post-apocalyptic world just to save a girl he has grown attached to - and it is only fair that he would die at the hands of someone who is just as irrational as he was in the first game. Get over it.

Thanks for the spoiler. If anything,

Spoiler

Joel in both games shows a surprising amount of humanity as does Ellie. Their symbosis is why the games sold through the narrative alone. People digged that chemistry.

 

37 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

If anything, boys and men could greatly benefit from having feminine role models, particularly in these increasingly dark, violent and depressing times.

Humor me: What would the benefits be? Feminine role models's issues are by definition different in priority than men's in society.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, scalliano said:

I'm at a loss to understand why subversion is mandatory.

Because the statu quo sucks and things need to change.

 

2 hours ago, scalliano said:

Oh, this is going to be fun...

All your answers to me pointing out that those works did not do what you say they did boil down to "Yeah, but I did not like it."

 

2 hours ago, scalliano said:

These are all original IPs, though (Cobra Kai notwithstanding).

That is irrelevant, as a Duke Nukem movie would essentially work as an original intellectual property, given how little material there is to adapt in the first place. Furthermore, those original IPs show that there has been no shortage of masculine role models.

 

2 hours ago, scalliano said:

You read the race and sexuality into it.

Again, you made a point of using a notoriously bisexual black woman as part of your tirade about movie executives ruining a potential movie adaptation of a often misogynistic franchise. You made it about race and sexuality in the first place.

Edited by Rudolph

Share this post


Link to post

“You’ve chosen to ignore content by Rudolph.”.

 

~flush~

 

“Ahh, much better!”

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, 7Mahonin said:

“You’ve chosen to ignore content by Rudolph.”.

 

~flush~

 

“Ahh, much better!”

I've gotten real tired of seeing good threads flooded with him baiting people into arguments and then telling them their point of view doesn't count for one reason or another. Extra points awarded for managing to bring up "pandemic, global warming, and economic collapse" in a Duke Nukem movie thread.

 

As for the movie, I've yet to see one English-language film based on a game that didn't turn out to be utter shit, and I highly fucking doubt a Duke film of all things is going to lift that curse for me. I foresee a cringefest with half a plot, and I bet it won't even feature interactive environments! 

Edited by TheMagicMushroomMan

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, Rudolph said:

Because the status quo sucks and things need to change.

I agree, but when everything is subverted then nothing is. Eventually the subversion itself becomes predictable. Call it "subversion herd immunity".

20 hours ago, Rudolph said:

All your answers to me pointing out that those works did not do what you say they did boil down to "Yeah, but I did not like it."

What I call into question is motivation and execution. How a story beat is implemented and why the writers chose to do it that way. All too often creators have gone on record stating that they have made creative decisions to actively piss people off. Case in point: another "lul reaktiunry" example would be Terminator: Dark Fate. Before the movie even came out, Tim Miller did an interview attacking fans, offering up Mackenzie Davis as some kind of sacrificial lamb in how she was gonna "trigger the chuds" or something equally as asinine. A completely unnecessary poisoning of the well, considering it turned out that was the least of the film's issues, given what transpires in the first minute of the film itself. Lo and behold, word spread and the movie flopped. Hard. Then you have creators like Neil Druckmann, who put their wanking material out as a game and call it feminism. On the other hand, the new Top Gun is apparently doing gangbusters...

20 hours ago, Rudolph said:

Again, you made a point of using a notoriously bisexual black woman as part of your tirade about movie executives ruining a potential movie adaptation of a often misogynistic franchise. You made it about race and sexuality in the first place.

Again, I never mentioned race or sexuality. I made an offhand joke about a Hollywood personality I dislike. You immediately invoked black and bisexual as if those are the summation of her entire being. The fact that you define people entirely in such superficial terms is actually somewhat concerning.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, scalliano said:

Again, I never mentioned race or sexuality. I made an offhand joke about a Hollywood personality I dislike. You immediately invoked black and bisexual as if those are the summation of her entire being. The fact that you define people entirely in such superficial terms is actually somewhat concerning.

I agree wholeheartedly. I didn't even know she was bisexual until it was brought up. I support anyone in their choice of sexuality but I do not familiarize myself with the sexuality of people on TV.  Apparently if you dislike an actor/actress, it must be because of something to do with their personal life and not their acting. People do this so they can dismiss your criticism by way of personal attacks and accusations. I'd recommend ignoring people like that as you cannot win a debate against them (tried) since they are automatically correct and will always assume the worst in other people. The ignore list is a wonderful place for such members should you grow tired of their antics.

Edited by TheMagicMushroomMan

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, scalliano said:

when everything is subverted then nothing is.

No, it does not work that way. A return to an oppressive norm is not subversion.

 

Bigoted tropes do not stop being bigoted once popular culture becomes only slightly better at treating marginalized people.

 

57 minutes ago, scalliano said:

What I call into question is motivation and execution.

It is fine if you do not like it. Of all the examples you gave, the only one I genuinely care about is Master of the Universe: Revelations.

 

The show basically did to Masters of the Universe what Transformers: The Movie did to its respective franchise, i.e. disrupt the status quo by unexpectedly killing off both the main hero and the main villain, giving what used to be supporting characters a chance to shine and to figure out what to do when the people who are usually in charge are no longer there. Transformers: The Movie reportedly did not do well upon its original release, yet it has since become a classic. Heck, most of Dragon Ball Z - also a much-beloved cultural juggernaut - involves Son Goku getting repeatedly sidelined, only to usually show up for the climax, and that gave room to other characters to stand out and do cool stuff of their own.

 

If the Duke Nukem movie ends up giving him a female sidekick who challenges him, it is not going to be a sign of moral decay and what not; it is going to be because you have to put something in your movie other than Duke Nukem quoting pop culture for an hour and a half.

 

57 minutes ago, scalliano said:

I made an offhand joke about a Hollywood personality I dislike.

Yep, and in doing so, you let the mask slip and revealed more about yourself that you wanted to...

 

You can either reflect on that and learn from it, or you can continue to double down with the reactionary discourse.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

Yep, and in doing so, you let the mask slip and revealed more about yourself that you wanted to...

No, They made a offhand joke about a Hollywood personality they disliked.

 

Sometimes it really isn't more difficult then that. I understand you are ruff on finding hidden meanings between people's lines but if that's your perjorative, then that's not the way to go at it.

 

It also has fuck all to do with the topic at hand which is a Duke Nukem movie being made.

 

On that topic, i think the movie could work just fine because its basically a Dudebro movie. American Pie meets John Wick, if anything. Or Ace Ventura.

 

Then again i feel that kind of flick would be better off in the 90s then attempt to do it today - What with the climate and all... Some people may throw buzzwords around and pretend to be offended by this hypothetical movie that they obviously will not watch.

 

But offended, they shall be.

Quote

You can either reflect on that and learn from it, or you can continue to double down with the reactionary discourse.

irony.gif

 

52 minutes ago, TheMagicMushroomMan said:

I agree wholeheartedly. I didn't even know she was bisexual until it was brought up. I support anyone in their choice of sexuality but I do not familiarize myself with the sexuality of people on TV. 

Imagine that: Before you can watch any show, you will have to do a quiz and figure out how every character from said show aligns with real-world tropes! Who cares that it is a sci-fi fantasy flock in the 3324, what is important is if their standards, sexuality and belief systems still match 2022 ones.

 

In general,* good character is defined by the quality of their acting, not by their sexuality and not by who they are privately.

 

*But ofcourse you will have outliers, usually around more brusk and sensitive subjects.

Quote

The ignore list is a wonderful place for such members should you grow tired of their antics.

I refuse to put people on a ignore list because i rather learn from the variety of opinions that exist there. And yes, even a unfaithful opinion is still an opinion worth reading.

 

I get where Rudolph's from; i just disagree with how they go against it for similar points as you are making.

Edited by Redneckerz

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, Koko Ricky said:

Does anyone actually like Duke's persona? He's a meat headed overgrown Chad with no thought process outside of fucking and killing. It's really stupid, and not even in a fun way. I love DN3D...but Duke as a character is cringe. 

I think it could be fun if the movie decided to take the meta route and have Duke Nukem find himself in a situation where he simply cannot fuck and kill his way out. Heck, since Duke Nukem is heavily inspired by Bruce Campbell, why not do something similar to My Name Is Bruce (only good and with a bigger budget) or Last Action Hero, with Duke Nukem being reimagined as a former action star who lost his career in Hollywood after a long and complicated legal battle and who finds himself drawn by superfans of him into a real-life perilous situation that he is not actually equipped to deal with.

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

Yep, and in doing so, you let the mask slip and revealed more about yourself that you wanted to...

 

You can either reflect on that and learn from it, or you can continue to double down with the reactionary discourse.

 

"Everyone I don't like is a Nazi", the post.

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, dasho said:

If you've bought into the notion of 'toxic masculinity', i.e. that any displays of stoicism, strength, assertiveness, confrontation, and the like are inherently bad, then that's on you. I didn't claim that the proper role model was a "domineering macho man", so don't put words into my mouth.

 

Stoicism		//
Strength		//
Assertiveness		//  Incorrect (Masculine, but not toxic)
Confrontation		//
Arrogance		//
Aggression		//
Sexually Controlling	//  Correct (Toxic + Masculine)
Homophobic		//

Just because people sometimes incorrectly call out toxic masculinity, doesn't mean the defenition magically changes to everything that was wrong about their call-out. Your definition is just not right.

In terms of Duke... it wasn't exactly PC to begin with, and got its own share of backlash at the time it was released. I think if released now with the same basic vibe, it would receive more criticism, for sure, but people need to keep in mind the context of gaming and how it's changed. Some part of that increased criticism is coming from just having more women in the consumer market. But despite that (as well as the cultural shift besides) people still manage to put out games with saxy wamen and not get burned at the stake. DNF itself is only ten years old, and it is still available for purchase. "If you don't like it don't play it"... fine, if you don't like people asking for representation, don't listen! Make your own fap material and sell it to your fellows! I guarantee the thought police will not be at your door! (But your sales might be affected, oh well!)

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, magicsofa said:

 


Stoicism		//
Strength		//
Assertiveness		//  Incorrect (Masculine, but not toxic)
Confrontation		//

Arrogance		//
Aggression		//
Sexually Controlling	//  Correct (Toxic + Masculine)
Homophobic		//

Just because people sometimes incorrectly call out toxic masculinity, doesn't mean the defenition magically changes to everything that was wrong about their call-out. Your definition is just not right.

 

I like how you are being subtly sexist by lumping in arrogance, sexual control, and homophobia in with masculinity. Thank goodness old games exist so I can fire them up without having to worry about standards like yours.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, dasho said:

 

I like how you are being subtly sexist by lumping in arrogance, sexual control, and homophobia in with masculinity. Thank goodness old games exist so I can fire them up without having to worry about standards like yours.

... They very clearly weren't lumping it with the entire concept of masculinity or man in general. See how they talk about those traits specifically in the context of just "toxic" masculinity? You know, "toxic" in the sense of being a crappier attitude and behavior in general? And how conveniently you ignored completely the "masculine, but not toxic" part of the post filled with positive traits?

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, DSC said:

... They very clearly weren't lumping it with the entire concept of masculinity or man in general. See how they talk about those traits specifically in the context of just "toxic" masculinity? You know, "toxic" in the sense of being a crappier attitude and behavior in general? And how conveniently you ignored completely the "masculine, but not toxic" part of the post filled with positive traits?

 

I thought this would have been clear by now, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. "Toxic masculinity" is a term I don't take seriously, and in practice it is used to vilify men in general. Anybody with a reasonably well-adjusted moral compass doesn't need a diagram to classify behaviors as generally good or generally bad, nor do they need any kind of special language to describe it, nor do they need to confine it to one gender.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×