BobbyBesar

I think we've moved on from this, but the idea that the invasion of modernity is one of the central themes of the show doesn't really work for me. As my wife pointed out, one of the major conflicts of the show appears to be older men targeting and exploting young women which is, in her words "the oldest crime that exists". But, lets talk about Cooper. Caveat: I've pre-watched a handful of episodes, but not the whole series. What's interesting about Cooper is that he in addition to being a narrative outsider to the town, he's also basically the epicenter of the genre-bending that the series embodies. Cooper is basically a 50's throwback. He's a noir detective. He's charmed by the small town atmosphere (because he didn't think it existed anymore). My wife noted that Twin Peak's setting has a lot in common with the fiction of Raymond Carver. But Cooper walked out of a Raymond Chandler novel and wandered into town. Twin Peaks isn't a 50's Leave it To Beaver town. Cooper isn't naive per se, he just seems that way because that's his milieu. There's a somewhat common theme in a certain kind of fairy tale that state basically states that how you handle the magical and unexpected can have a big impact on your outcomes. If you take things in stride, try to fit in, and don't freak out, you'll probably come out a lot better than if you react violently. When the Red Queen asks you to play croquet with a flamingo, just politely play along until you see a graceful way out. Otherwise you may lose your head. Cooper seems to understand this: nothing fazes him (see: his reaction to the Bookhouse Boys). Is it inaccurate to call Twin Peaks magical realism? I never see it described that way, but that seems like it may be appropriate.

Oh yeah, it's a terrible, garbage rabbithole to disappear down and gets into stupid distinctions between Spec Fic, SF, Sci-Fi, Science Fiction, and all sorts of True Scotsman stuff. But Space Dandy is great. I found the English voice work surprisingly palatable, but I do want to watch the musical episodes in Japanese. It's very obvious that there's something lost in translation there, especially in the High School Musical. In comparison, Rock and Roll Dandy worked a little better, since the music owes so much to English genre roots anyways.

Also, Viva Namida is a baller opening theme.

I just watched the season 2 finale, and I have to agree. I have decided that I actually totally love Space Dandy. Why? A couple things about the last episode: - It finally pays off the galactic space battle they've been teasing the entire show, and it's pretty awesome. I didn't realize how much I wanted to see colored lines spawn little colored circles, but apparently I really did. - The english voice actor for Dandy is mostly Ok. He has a hard job. But in the finale, he did a couple of line reads that were just amazing. Dandy's "Yeah, well, I don't." during his interrogation is a fucking great line read. There's a couple more, but that one really stood out. - Commodore Perry jokes are the best. The reveal of his real identity is also the best. (Warning: below are my own opinion-y generalizations, and won't stand up to deep interrogation.) But the real thing is that this is a show that _gets_ sci-fi. I've long believed that the short story format is the ideal format for the goals of science fiction (at least the parts that I think are interesting.) Sci-fi stories, like horror stories, shouldn't overstay their welcome. They should introduce an idea, explore the idea, and then end (There's also a certain "kind" of idea that should be explored, usually relating to technology and the nature of humanity). This kind of distinction is what makes people say that Star Wars and various Space Operas aren't proper "S-F". So, I think sci-fi should be the province of short story collections, magazines, etc. It's the "pulp" history of sci-fi. For a reasonable while, I read Heavy Metal magazine. I appreciate that a lot of people find it distasteful, but it hits just the right kind of notes for what I want from a science fiction experience. In a single episode of Heavy Metal, you can get 10 wildly different stories. Some will be good, some will be crap. And that's what Space Dandy understands. It doesn't try to make everything coherent. It's satisfied to tell a range of stories. Some are personal. Some are about the Japanese experience. Some are critiques of the audience, or the industry. Some are just for fun. Because it's not a single body of work. It's an anthology series, that happens to use the same characters for some general thematic consistency. It's a show that is _willing to be bad_. Not because it's phoned in, but because not every episode will land with everybody. Which is great. It's also got surprisingly deep legs. There are all sorts of jokes hidden here and there. There are probably so many that I don't even catch.(related: Can you make a split screen legal trial without it being a Phoenix Wright joke at this point? I assume not. Is a talking motorcycle in an episode that intentionally takes itself too seriously automatically a Kino's Journey reference? I assume so?) So, I've decided that I love Space Dandy. More than Cowboy Bebop, which got too caught up in its own self-seriousness. It's the kind of love that I don't know if I would recommend it to anybody who isn't me, but I do love it. Also, fishing episode Ouendan finale. Case Closed.

Regarding multiplayer fighting games with dynamic terrain and hazards, there's a better analog than Smash Bros. Poor forgotten Powerstone....

Ah, yes, you're right, in regards to what she calls the "Drop dead gorgeous" trope. Looks like fashion editorial shoots. Fair enough. The point of contextualizing in other industries is twofold: 1) it helps defuse criticisms that she's "coming to destroy gaming" 2) If the goal is awareness, it helps to underscore the ubiquity of the problem. If the goal is to affect the content creation,it provides contrasting examples to reconsider how similar effects could be done in a more gender-sensitive manner. Fashion photography doesn't really hit home in that regard because it isn't likely to be familiar to the target audience for the videos. Also, I recognize that there are pitfalls in the approach implied by my first point in regards to catering to the worst of your audience, which can, when drawn to extremes, shut down any useful conversation whatsoever. But I think there are marginal consumers that have a knee-jerk defense mechanism that can be defused in order to get them to really engage with the content of what is being presented.

To be clear, I much prefer your response to Busby's. The whole point of this exercise is to actually enter a dialogue about this. My response here is: whatever her initial intent, it's become clear that for a lot of her audience, this _IS_ a Sexism 101 course. That being the case, I personally feel that, were this a project I were doing, I would make some attempts to tailor the content to that audience. This is pop-cultural commentary, being presented to a general audience via youtube video. If Sarkeesian wanted to speak to an experienced audience, she could have presented it to an academic journal. If your intent is to engage a general audience, I think the onus is partially upon you to communicate in a way that that audience can understand. To be clear, this isn't a direct criticism. I understand, and even stated in my initial post that I understand that her videos have a specific, limited scope. But these are ways that I personally feel the content could be more effective for the audience that is consuming it. I think there are still some marginal (in an econmics sense) consumers that could be reached with additional content. The japanese culture stuff would take some time and effort to flesh out...I just dashed those off from the top of my head. But basically, it boils down to: Japanese culture seems very familiar in a lot of ways because it has a fairly ubiquitous presence in modern American pop culture. But it still draws from a distinct tradition that can have it's own distinct set of tropes and assumptions. Again, the impact of this critique is mitigated because the core criticism is about consumption rather than authorial intent. But I presented it merely as a potential critique of the Tropes v. Women series. That's context within the gaming industry (the ads were for games and gaming products). I'm talking about context with the larger cultural landscape, where I can't buy bath salts at The Body Shop without seeing a wall of models making "Fuck Me" eyes. I'm not expecting a lecture about the monomyth, or whatever. But given that these videos are targeted at the gaming industry, some comparative content would be nice. When TV attempts to make things serious and gritty, do they go to the same well of misogyny? Did Deadwood feature as much prostitute-stabbing as Red Dead Revolver? Does Dragon Age feature as much rape as Game of Thrones? Why was Batman: Arkham City a literal "bitch"-fest, but The Dark Knight Rises wasn't? (These are specific examples provided for dramatic effect, the intent being to look at how general attitudes in one industry are more or less pronounced than in another). What does it say about the game industry vs the TV / Film industries that they take different, or similar, approached to this kind of content? Again, I recognize that this is outside the scope that Sarkeesian has defined for her project. But these are the kinds of questions that I think her videos raise without providing answers, which may be a source of criticism. I also recognize that we're like 7% of the way through the planned series. But I'm speaking in the context of what's currently available.

I'm not one of those people, because I'm not big on social-media type arguments. But the criticisms that I would level include: - There are individual examples that are knowingly indulging in the tropes she cites for the purpose of subverting or ridiculing them. The use of No More Heroes in the latest video stuck out to me in this regard. (I am aware that objections to individual examples does nothing to undermine the greater point which is about a general environment of hostility). - It is very problematic to use American standards and cultural analysis to critique Japanese cultural products. Not impossible, especially because the core of the critique is about consumption rather than creation, but nonetheless very problematic. - She doesn't try to contextualize any of the things she cites into the greater cultural landscape. It turns out games are sexist in large part because our entire society is really very sexist. By failing to contextualize these things, she 1) implies by omission that these are unique to gaming, which can help inflame her critics and 2) open herself up to specious objections like the AEI Oprah / Daytime TV comparison. (Although I do understand also that this is outside the scope of her arguments). Also, to be super buzzkill-man, commenting on her physical appearance, even ironically to indicate the lack of critical discussion...seems weird to me in this context..

That reminds me, I need to buy a copy of D2 before it becomes prohibitively expensive.

That's probably true. My continued interest in Michigan is mostly: - It's a Suda51 game! He's weird! - The conceit is theoretically interesting (see also Dead Rising, Fatal Frame) - The name is a weird pun! - ME WANTY BUT CANNOT HAVE!!! AAAAHHHH!

It's also important to remember that there are approximately 7.3 million comics released each year by the major publishers, versus about 30 episodes of a cartoon. The nature of story telling and editing means that the cartoons are going to be much better on a per-episode basis.

There's a Hong Kong film called Gen Y Cops where somebody BASE jumps off a Hong Kong landmark and lands in Singapore.* (*Actually, it could be the other way around.)

It doesn't have to! Yum. Lobster. Now that's a sponsor I could get behind. Like Naturebox, but with live animals.

"I think we've discovered an interesting strategy." Most large corporations are incredibly risk averse, something gamers are familiar with in regards to content, but it applies to market identification as well. The increasing costs of AAA game development certainly aren't helping with that mentality either.

Peripherally related, but has this been posted here before?

I don't really understand why people are taking Sommers seriously. Is it just because she's an external source? She just re-states the same basic talking points that you see everywhere. Her argument, where it isn't irrelevant, boils down to circular logic: games are for boys because games are for boys. It's basically mirroring the exact same content as the Maddox video she pulls a clip from. Also, LOL at "I've been looking at the gamer culture for a couple weeks". Clearly she's an expert.

Hmmm. This post brought to you by CS 0031 - Data Structures and Algorithms.

You guys got Michigan: Report from Hell though.

I'm sitting here with a copy of ILLBLEED on my desk, it's one of a handful of DC games that I still own legit copies of. I bought it because I played the Japanese version, and it made no sense, but by the time I found the english version, I sort of lost interest. Maybe I'll try it out for Halloween / Dreamcast anniversary. Uh, I feel like I should try to add something. How about this:

I like when they don't even try to pretend they're making something other than nightmare creatures.

... ... *slow clap*

Interesting theory. Reminds me of Neil Tyson's spiel about how the quill pen encourages pithy speechwriting, as it only allowed 10-ish(?) words per dip, which is about a single breath's worth of speech. User Experience design is everywhere!

Avio-terra-terian, possibly. Unless birds are off the table.

Yeah. And by and large, I share your feelings. I often actively try to separate myself from emotional reactions in these kinds of situations, to see if it provides a different perspective. And again, it is particularly tragic in this case, because from the looks of things, Brown might potentially have survived anywhere in the range of 1-9 bullets. If somebody is killed immediately, and the remaining bullets are just shooting an already dead man, it's weirdly gross, but it feels less avoidable compared to a situation like this.

I guess what I was trying to get at is that those choices very likely didn't actually exist (in a conscious way). The choice was "I am going to shoot this man until he is dead", and he did that, it just took him a while. I don't think Wilson re-evaluated at any point during that entire exchange. Should he have re-evaluated? Probably. But I have no idea how realistic that is. I completely agree with you that the reason he made the decision initially has a lot to do with the racial tensions present. But I don't think, even to himself, Wilson thought "Now I am going to shoot this guy in the back". He simply thought "I have not finished with the shooting yet." I just think the decision tree was much, much smaller than you're supposing. The only transition was "Is he dead yet?"->No->Keep Shooting.