Ben X

Ha ha, actually I was planning to say it fits, but I thought about it a little longer and now I'm not sure because of the SPPPPOOOOOIIILER love is the fifth element angle. But it is definitely problematic in all the ways CollegeBaby outlines above.

Go ahead and put it in there, see what happens!

Twig, the case got super-closed. You're out of order, mister. Anyway, I have a fucking brilliant example - Seven Of Nine! Her sexy one-of-a-kind boob-hugging Starfleet costume design is given some bullshit tech explanation. EDIT: just realised, this isn't exactly her backstory, but it involves it very strongly. It counts, right?

CollegeBaby, get off my side! It's not a justification, that's my point! It's not there to explain why they decided to hypersexualise her character - their reasoning for that is evident throughout the story. That line is not there to justify her hypersexualised design - it doesn't do that, it doesn't try to do that. And it's not a backstory! I'm glad that Twig thinks Bjorn, who falls on the side of her not being part of the trope, is right. Glad you saw the light, buddy. Having got the final word in, I will also now agree to table it EDIT: oops, sorry Reyturner, simulpost! Case super-closed *bangs Reyturner's gavel*

Yeah, but all the toons were drawn with intent. This isn't a specific backstory for her. I'd say it's like a human character saying "hey, some women are born sexy!" That's not inventing a backstory, it's hanging a lampshade on it. Besides that, SPOIIIIILLLLLERS the line does actually serve a story purpose: introducing the idea that just because she's drawn as a femme fatale doesn't necessarily mean she is one. EDIT: and her sexualised design is inherent to the story! It's not like she could be replaced by, to pick an anachronistic example, Elmyra without affecting anything.

Ninja introduced me to the actual show Impractical Jokers, and I am loving it. It's a prank show with the cruelty taken out, instead being predicated on the hosts' embarrassment (they occasionally walk the line still, but it's mostly fine). I have to force myself to stop binge-watching it after my face starts hurting from laughing to the point of tears.

Remember everyone, it's easy to build a library of excuses to ignore everything someone has to say.

But her saying that is the same as a human character saying "I can't help it that I've got a good body, it's genetics." It's not the author trying to hand-wave away their choice to put a sexy character in there with diegetic bullshit. The issue isn't whether it's problematic, it's whether it fits the trope. If it does fit the trope, then the trope is too broad, and needs renaming! If a trope starts off being applied too broadly and being misunderstood, then it'll be dead to language on arrival! But perhaps someone here might disagree with me so I guess I'LL JUST SHUT UP AND PRE-EMPTIVELY SIT HERE POUTING.

Power Girl actually says in one of the comics that her boob window is there because she couldn't think of a symbol to put on there. (Real.) Did you know that Lara Croft has massive knockers because she stores the souls of her dead parents in there, so they can take sustenance from her heart? (Fake.)

I think it should include a level of hoop-jumping by the author. It's not stuff that puts supermodels or strippers in there because supermodels and strippers are sexy, it's stuff that has a Victorian school ma'am wearing a miniskirt because, um, well, she has a rare disorder that means she breathes through the back of her knees and so needs them uncovered.

Good point, I haven't tried other browsers yet. EDIT: bah, this one worked this time! I'll wait 'til another one that doesn't work after refreshes and coming back later, then try it in FF and IE. Thanks JC!

Suddenly a large portion of Youtube videos aren't playing on my laptop - they just load for a while then give up. I don't have the issue on my desktop, so I'm wondering if it's an issue with 64-bit Chrome which I installed on my lappy after Gormongous recommended it, or perhaps something to do with internet or processor speed. Or maybe it's an html5 player issue that my desktop just isn't having for some reason.

Shitbird - a completely useless arsehole (apparently originally a US military term) Shit-eating grin - broad, smug grin And in The Blues Brothers, Elwood uses "to bullshit" as a term for telling white lies. "I didn't lie, I just... bullshitted you."

Quick disclaimer: i absolutely agree that these are just different ways of viewing, not better or worse. If you like watching with spoilers, that's great. I just resent the attitude some have (no one here as far as I'm aware!) that because they don't care about spoilers, no one should. This occasionally spills over into people maliciously spoiling films, which is the pits #notallspoilerlovers That disclaimed, I'd say that if a contemporary film requires as much prep as, say, a Shakespeare play performance.then that's a failing on that film's part! And I personally don't pause or rewind if I miss something - if a film is, intentionally or not, throwing too much information at me to take in on a first viewing, I want that to be part of my experience! That's an interesting reading of Citizen Kane. Wouldn't you say that

As someone who is particularly spoiler-averse, I'll weigh in even though most stuff has been said already. It's not spoilers that are the problem, it's the lack of warnings or tags. It takes very little effort to do this and it's common courtesy, yet so many sites (io9 is particularly bad) just throw big plot elements out there on their front page. If they're tagged/warned, it's then the spoiler-averse viewer's responsibility to avoid/resist them. Having a certain plot twist or element spoiled won't ruin the piece as a whole if it's good, but it does ruin that particular element which is a part of the piece that the author intended the audience to experience. From Dusk Til Dawn is still an awesome movie even if you know the deal, but watching it unaware and having that huge WTF moment is something worth preserving imo. Same with, say, Psycho or Planet Of The Apes. Even aside from twists, I watched Robocop and Terminator at a young enough age to know pretty much nothing about them, and experiencing the gradual reveal of the nature of those eponymous characters was really cool. I would have read Cloud Atlas even if it was a big spoiler, and it's way beyond the spoiler warning statute of limitations (I'd say off the top of my head - movies, books and games 2 years before you can stop with spoiler warnings; a tv series at least until the next season has started) so I wouldn't have resented it even (the reason I asked is because once I've had something spoiled I do like to know how big an element of the piece it is so at least I don't have misaligned expectations). I have to disagree with Gormongous about first time viewing, at least with movies. You can look for artistic choices on any subsequent watch (or even whilst considering the piece straight after your first viewing!), but the ftv is the only time you're able to watch with no preconceptions or foreknowledge. Most films/shows are written on the assumption that the viewer knows nothing going in, so it seems to me that's the logical way to watch them.

Sounds like someone needs an MSPaint diagram!

Yeah, it sounded like a minor thing from what I've heard about the overall craziness of the book!

I'm trying to avoid finding out about the changes, so thank you for the spoiler warning!

Good, thanks!

I was surprised to hear very positive views of Monsters U. I posted at the time that it was "uninspired and unfunny", and zeusthecat agreed: And I had the impression that the general consensus was that it was pretty weak, but perhaps not... (I was also surprised to find out, after reading that arstechnica xenomorph article the first time it was posted on the forums, that some fans took that Gorman line to mean that it was an established, named species; that's obviously not intended.) Was Jake's (?) Cloud Atlas spoiler a big spoiler? That book's next on my reading list!

I wish you would take up that challenge. (Oops, there I go again!)

Yes, obviously. That's why I said "invokes a censorious tone", not "is censorship". I also wish those things you list, plus a lot of other things, but it would probably break the forum if I listed everything I wish, so I just posted one minor thing that was on my mind at the time.

I wish people would stop saying "you don't get to [make argument/statement/judgement/express opinion X]." It sounds childish and naive, especially as it's demonstrably false, plus it invokes a censorious tone.

We get Cacique in from Spain for mojitos whenever we can.

I recently posted on a forum, stating my dislike for the way someone had jumped into a thread, posted a rant and told people with different opinions to shut the fuck up, then jumped out again. A few days later, I got about ten DMs on Twitter from said person, quoting me as saying things I didn't and accusing me of tone control. I spent a while writing what I think was a calm and thoughtful response via the forum's PM system, yet after a few days this person, while posting on Twitter and the forums, completely ignores my response and my later request for at least an acknowledgement of it. So basically they contrived to do the same thing to me privately that they had done to that thread! No real reason for posting this story other than to vent my frustration! I'm just glad I'm not getting this times a thousand every day from goobergait simply for being a woman.