|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I don't disagree it calls into question aspects of free will, particularly depending on how you interpret her decisions after the moment she becomes aware of her entire timeline. Is she following it because it's already determined? Or is she following it because those are the choices she would make regardless?
Or, with a Many Worlds Interpretation, all possibilities exist in which she makes each decision differently, but we're only shown one.
One thing to remember is that the concept is that language changes brain function. The concept here being a circular language opening up access to all points of your time line simultaneously. Once all of your experiences are placed on the circle of time, which one comes first?
I can write more later. It's a situation that doesn't lend itself well to our own current understanding/perception of time, nor our language. I've got other stuff I need to write for school though.
Except she's not seeing the future. Every moment she sees is the present.
The movie doesn't include any precognition.
Did you see the right movie?
The movie isn't actually about the things you've said it is. But we've had this issue before.
From my perspective, you are literally making things up and saying they're true. So, no matter how much you try and convince me of them now, you're not going to succeed. You'd have to say true things to convince me.
And maybe that's why you think the movie is fantasy, you're seeing things that weren't actually there. She wasn't seeing all relative quantum states. She only saw one future and one past.
If you came out thinking she could see ALL outcomes, then yes, I would agree that that is well beyond anything realistic and complete fantasy. But as it is, that interpretation of the movie itself is a fantasy, since she can't see all outcomes.
In fact, at no point does she undertake any action that changes the outcome of the future. By the time she does take action, it has already been determined what happened and she merely follows along and does her bit. She even talks about how she knows the outcome of all her choices, but does them anyway.
I'm not going to debate the aspect of how fast she learns this new way of thinking, because movie time/perception of movie time is highly fraught. Since we aren't really given how much time actually elapses, it's a pointless argument.
But as far as I can tell, you problem with the perception of time isn't true, but rather your perception of the movie that is off. From my perspective, it's like you came in and complained that Samwise dies at the end of Two Towers. If it were true, I could maybe see your point, but it's not true, so your point seems... kind of dumb.
The key is only introducing simple mechanical concepts and letting a new player focus on the harder abstract concepts of dealing with the fiction. Don't be shy about strong railroading early on, but be honest about it. I sometimes tell new players to not worry about all the rules, but that I will introduce concepts as they become important.
ME: There's a couple thugs in the alley way. You could try sneaking past, or fast-talking your way past them, but you think it's a good idea to take them out now. Plus, this'll let you see how a short, simple combat works.
Me: Okay, those guys were easy, but up ahead you see a bigger group, it might be better to try to get past without fighting. You've got sneaking and climbing skills you could try (which are good), or you could try disguising yourself (which will be harder). Either way, we'll see how skills work. Which do you want to try?
As they get comfortable with rules, the rails go away.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Here's a new question: What is your preferred level of danger in a game? How common is PC death? Do you fudge it, or look for ways around it, or do you run a harsh, cutthroat campaign? Do you hate it when your own characters are at risk of dying?
As a player, I don't enjoy it when death is constant. Dying once a session and having to make a new character would be a real pain. That said, I've rarely encountered that. Much more often I see GM's bending over backwards to avoid my death and I take a mildly sadistic pleasure out of pushing them further when I see them start to do it. I like failure being an option; that doesn't have to mean death, but it means framing combat as something other than life-death as success-failure then. If combat is life or death, then death has to be a possibility.
As GM, I don't go out of my way to kill PCs, but I do it. Often times I present a post-death choice to the player if they want to return (and the game affords it). Currently running an E8 game, so there isn't a lot of readily available Raise Dead. I've given players conversations with gods/beings who strike a deal with the PC. If it's important to the player to have THAT character back, they'll take the deal. If they want to move on, they don't take the deal.
Laphroaig, depending on the bottle, can be very expensive. The 10 year should run about $45 (give or take $5) and is very solid and reliable (though I miss the 12 yr as being a regular offering).
The human perception of time matches none of the mathematical representations of time. This is a fairly well-understand fact in physics. Mathematically, time should work in both directions. Changing the directional flow doesn't change events or the order in which they happen, A->B->C becomes C->B->A, the relational order is still preserved. We don't actually know why we can't perceive time in that way though.
Based on that concept though, in a way, the universe has already run it's course. All events have already happened. We can't perceive that though, we only perceive one moment to the next in what we perceive to be "forwards".
In addition, it also adheres strongly to a concept that this perception would be limited to the moment it's acquired. She doesn't gain that perception for her entire existence, but only from the moment acquired to her death.
As for how and how much the brain could change, that's entirely speculative on your part. There are massive quantities of things we don't understand about the brain. In fact, we have very little understanding of the rules and principles that determine how our brain works. We know a lot of individual functions and how it reacts in certain circumstances, but we have no idea why.
All science-fiction is imaginative, otherwise it would just be science, not fiction. In this case, the story takes two basic concepts, the theory of language changing your brain and time flowing both forwards and backwards, combines them and presents a story. It's not fantasy, fantasy would be completely made up. These are grounded in actual science though. Yes, I agree it is speculative in nature and not wholly realistic, but that doesn't put it in the realm of "miracles" or magic. It might be implausible, but it is not impossible. There's a significant gap between those two words.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
The criminalization of youth is very much an issue and I can see a case made for a foundation in various Clinton crime bills, but so much of this is the result of state and county governments that laying it at the feet of the Clinton's is a red herring. It's fighting a battle 20 years ago in which your primary opponents (conservatives) will gladly chant with you about how much the Clinton's suck, and then when you ask them to change it, they'll do nothing.
"Hey Republicans, the Clintons are to blame for how much of a mess this country is."
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I'm not a fan of Bill's welfare reform, but are we making the claim that this kind of thing never happened before that was passed? That seems kind of naive.
Once the future has already happened, you can't change it. When you can view all parts of your existence simultaneously, the knowledge of future events has already shaped your past and vice versa. You're already doing everything as if you knew everything you were going to know.
There are a lot of parents if you asked them after they had a child afflicted with a terrible disease, or some development issue, would they go back and choose to not have the child now that they know what it was like to live through that and they'll say they wouldn't change anything. For example, a friend of mine who has an autistic child and if given the choice would not remove the autism or choose to not have a child. That isn't as severe as dying young, but it's still illustrative. Once you love someone, you're not going to change them or remove them from your life even if something really bad happened with them. When Dr. Banks is making that choice, she already loves her daughter, so it's not surprising at all that she would make the choice to have her. Not having her would be like killing a person she loved.
In addition, if she chose not to have the child, those events would no longer be in her memories and the child would disappear forever.
It's also dealing with deterministic concepts that once events are decided they cannot be altered. Time travelers can't go back in time and change the past, not unless they've already done so, resulting in the current set of histories that have already happened. It's not entirely implausible either, the more we look at quantum physics and the more we understand our brain, the more we realize that we're not in control of ourselves as much as we think we are.
What miracle? Everything that happened was appropriately set up and explained through the course of the movie. The main character tells you the ending of the movie in the opening narration. The concept of language altering your brain in it's weaker form is a real-world theory and widely accepted. The events don't come from nowhere, they are predicated on ideas and concepts introduced throughout the story.
You're addressing other issues, not the one I was responding to.
The claim is that Hollywood doesn't cast unknown actors in major movies.
I provided evidence that it does. Your rebuttal doesn't actually prove me wrong, since you're actually affirming that I'm right by pointing out that Hollywood can balance out unknown leads with big name supporting actors and directors.
But you cannot use your points as evidence without first admitting that Hollywood casts unknown actors as leads in big budget films. To prove me wrong, you need to show that those actors had long careers and a history of starring in big budget films prior to those movies and were famous, household names.
For example, you could pull the google trend data for Chris Hemsworth, and try to show that he was very famous prior to the release of Thor. Except that looking at the data it's pretty obvious that he was not well known prior to the 2011 release of that movie. If you isolate the data to US trends, he was actually at 0 interest prior to 2009, with about 8% of his peak in searchs/mentions from 2009-2011. If you look at the spikes, they all matchup with Marvel movies (Rush had a minor spike, but it was quickly eclipsed by The Dark World).
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Every star has a breakout role. No star has experience being the lead in a big budget movie until they have experience being in a big budget movie. Hollywood routinely makes movies that star barely known actors.
One need only look at the most recent Star Wars movie which is lead by TWO actors who were previously unknown to most audiences, one was a woman, the other a black man. It's only the 3rd highest grossing movie of all time. It's not like Star Wars: The Force Awakens was a low budget movie either.
So the idea that Hollywood doesn't put unknown actors in front of major budget films is b#!@$+~~.
The idea that audiences won't go see minorities (or women) as main characters is also b~$%*@@+.
Chris Hemsworth, not very well known until he made Thor.
But yes, let's proceed pushing the myth that only known and established actors get cast in the leads of big budget movies.
Captain Yesterday wrote:
But then it'll just keep going, someone has to speak up eventually.
The same could be said for racism. I'm willing to let the issue drop, but not in the face of "racism doesn't exist, besides, it's good for white people" comments.
The movies and series are good. They certainly aren't great works of philosophy, but they pose interesting questions of identity and individuality in an ever more complicated and connected world.
For example: Stand Alone Complex is a term invented by the series. It describes a series of "copycats" without having an original, or the original being fictional (urban legend). The first season involves the main characters chasing down a hacker who is alleged to have done all sorts of crimes, but as they investigate, they find out more and more that they were all done by different people seeking to either emulate the crime, or take advantage of the perception of the original crime. A bunch of fanboys start an online discussion where the theories get wilder and wilder, feeding into each other, and having less and less relation to the original event.
The second season is a government official is inspired by those previous events decides to create his own stand alone complex. Through viruses and leaked information he creates the appearance of an organized terrorist organization bent on kicking out all the refugees. His goal is to stoke anti-refugee sentiment AND refugee reactions in order to set off a conflict between natives and refugees. The resulting conflict creating a rising tide of nationalism and push the country into a new era of glory.
Who is advocating for a law?
Who is advocating for quotas?
Who is advocating for a ban?
You keep jumping to the illogical conclusion that because people see something wrong, they want to make legal changes. No one is calling for that with this topic.
So take your righteous indignation about laws/bans/quotas and save them for when someone actually proposes it. Cause so far, no one has done that.
Studies show that people who aren't exposed to people of different cultures have a difficult time reading the facial expressions of those who are different. This is even true of someone of one race who is raised in an area with no other members of their own race (for example an adopted Asian child who is raised in a white community), though the white people would still have difficulty with the Asian child's facial expressions. The way to solve this is to increase exposure. People who are exposed to other races/cultures tend to be more tolerant of them, less fearful and more easily able to communicate with them.
Lastly, what % of actors being white would you consider marginalization? 50%? 60%? 70%?
In 2014, 73% of speaking roles went to white actors. Would you consider them "marginalized" if that went down to say... 65%? Or do you need that to go up past 80%? The US is currently 63% white BTW.
Its really using two wrong to make a right in a way but its a complicated issue and might be the best we can do atm then.
Is giving people who are non-white a chance to participate a wrong?
Remember, it's not giving one race an advantage over another, it's removing the advantage one race had.
Let's put this is gaming terms. White actors used to have a +5 to their Diplomacy checks to get movie parts, resulting in them getting significantly more roles. To make the system fair, we'd need to either give everyone that +5 bonus, or remove the bonus completely.
Changing the race of characters isn't inherently bad. The problem is when it's done in a way that makes racial/ethnic groups disappear. If Asian actors were well represented in the movies, ScarJo as the Major would potentially be irrelevant. Cause then they could use the excuse "Due to scheduling conflicts, we couldn't get our top Asian choices, so we moved further down the list."
Consider Marvel's lineup on Netflix. If Ironfist were changed to Asian, would it be part of a trend of making it hard to find white actors on television? No, it would be easy to find white actors in other leading roles, not just on television, but in other Netflix series. Within the MCU series on Netflix alone you can find 3 other white male actors who are featured prominently (Daredevil, Punisher and Foggy Nelson). Ironfist isn't being changed though and will continue to be white (there's a different thread on that to debate it).
I'll repeat the sentiment from the top though, ending exclusionary practices is not a "wrong". Asking to be included and including people who have traditionally not been included is not a wrong.
Do you think that minorities have equal opportunities when it comes to on-screen representation?
As an exercise, make a list of white actors who do get leads in major roles involving martial arts. Then compare it to a list of asian-american actors who don't do martial arts. Which list is longer? Which list should be longer? Can you even make the second list without looking someone up?
Quark Blast wrote:
Whitewashing isn't intentional. Woody Allen has described his casting process where he doesn't even consider casting black people unless the role specifically calls for it, because he doesn't see race as being part of the casting process. This has produced all-white casts in all of his movies, except for characters that had to be explicitly black.
He doesn't intentionally exclude black people from his movies, it just doesn't even occur to him to include them. When he pictures "bellhop #2" as a nonspecific person, he automatically imagines them as white. When he imagines a romantic interest for the main character, unless something about that character specifically calls for them to be non-white, he imagines a white person.
The argument that studios don't want to put money behind untested actors is b$@@%~#+. Routinely major money is put behind directors AND actors who haven't had major movies all the time. You could make a decent list out of just the MCU movies. Chris Evans for example had been in some big movies, but most of them didn't do well commercially. The movies that did do well, he wasn't the lead and most were smaller films. He was in the two Fantastic Four movies, neither of which did very well and both are widely panned by critics and audiences alike. Guardians of the Galaxy had both a first time director (for a major movie) and an untested lead. You might notice a gender/racial pattern with these three people though.
Here's a challenge for you, if you think whitewashing isn't a thing, please explain to me the casts for Exodus and Gods of Egypt. Two movies that take place in Egypt, but don't include much of anyone that one might vaguely describe as African.
Just curious, have you found the post yet where I advocated a quota or ban yet?
Are there two types of blackface?
I am in favor of bans/quotas as much as you are in favor of black-face.
So, if you post that you think I'm in favor of a ban/quota, then I will have to assume you approve of black-face. If you post that I'm not in favor of a ban/quota, then I will assume you oppose black-face.
You're continuing to lie about me advocating quotas. I'm not advocating quotas and I find your insinuation that I am to be offensive and mischaracterizing my position.
Are you getting how this works yet?
You've said you want to see the best actor, regardless of race. For example, Laurence Olivier in Othello. Olivier is a celebrated actor and one of the best of all time. Therefore, I can make the assumption based on your stance of "best actor for the job" that you have no problem with his portrayal of the character in black face.
Why are you in favor of the use of black face?
Of course, you can get me to back off this assumption, by agreeing to back off the assumption that I'm in favor of quotas. But if you're going to make ridiculous assumptions about me, I'm going to assume you're in favor of the use of black face.
Seems like we might have a better conversation if we stop making assumptions about one another, don't you agree?
Okay, I get it. You think black-face is okay. Or am I reading too much into your position?
I'll defend the quota system if you defend black-face. If you aren't comfortable with that, then lets not read things into the other person's position.
Where did I advocate a quota system? You mention quota's several times and responded to my post, so please point out there I said there should be a quota system.
If you can't, please acknowledge it and admit that I'm not advocating a quota system and that you railing against one (at least to me) is b%*!!!+# and inventing an argument that I wasn't making.
Yup, that's part of it. In a perfect world, unless the race of the character is central to their identity, it shouldn't matter.
The other part is that because roles aren't handed out even proportionally by race (no one is arguing for precise measurements, but just that basic sense of being fair) that we should be extra aware of when we're taking ethnically/racially biased roles (race/ethnicity isn't central, but it's highly suggestive) and not giving them to the appropriate actors.
Non-white actors shouldn't just be cast for roles that require someone to be non-white, but if Hollywood isn't going to cast them in anything else, they should at least get all of those roles.
Oh what about the race lift of the gunslinger in dark tower? Or is that ok because a white character is being played by a black actor?
First off, the issue isn't "changing race of the character is ALWAYS bad". That isn't how you judge something like this. You look at who is predominantly being represented in media, and look at how characters get changed. If the vast majority of roles go to white people, then changing black roles to white is obviously bad, because you're pushing a marginalized group further to the side (cause you're ONLY casting them in ethnically required roles). Changing a white role to black is inclusive, because it's increasing the availability of roles for the minority group.
If non-white groups were given good representation among leading actors/actresses, changing a role here or there to white wouldn't be a big deal.
Imagine we're in a roleplaying group and I'm the GM. You make a character and want to participate, but I keep shining the focus on another player. Then, when your character's specialty is about to come up in the story, I award that other player a magic item that lets him circumvent that story issue for the party. If you at least got some screen time/participation you might not be as mad about the magic item, but if I'm not letting you participate at all, how would that feel?
It's a crude analogy, don't nitpick it. If someone doesn't understand what I'm trying to say, please ask, but if you nitpick or add more stuff to it, I won't respond. I don't want to go onto a tangent about the analogy.
No worries. It sounded funny when you said it, but I had to look it up to be sure.
I really like the Individual Eleven story. I enjoy it's historical adjacency (the original crime is a real event) and it serves as a much more illuminating example of what a stand alone complex is. If they use that story pretty much as in, it'll be interesting in how it is received by the public, since it's a story about manufacturing a war against refugees and immigrants.
2nd edit: he was the planner, the guy with the messed up face. He planted seeds and viruses to convince people to engage in terrorist behavior and create the illusion of an organized group, when no such group existed. His plan being to stir up the fear of violence against refugees, causing refugees to become more violent themselves, finally resulting in anti-refugee sentiment and legislation. The resulting wave of nationalism bringing a new era of glory to Japan.
Night Witches is excellent. The session I played in ended up crashing and burning... well, the planes did. The session was actually a lot of fun. We we're doing fine up until the actual bombing run. On my plane, we had something like 3-4 consecutive 6 or less results in a row and the GM just gave and was like "You two die." I think one plane limped back to base and crash landed.
World Wide Wrestling is great, even if you don't like pro-wrestling.
Epyllion is a lot of fun, you play dragons.
Velvet Gloves is in development, I haven't played it yet, but you play an all-girl street gang in the 1970's (think The Warriors).
Urban Shadows is good, but kind of generic. You get the whole gamut of World of Darkness types, plus a few more. I do like it, but it feels like trying to capture all aspects of urban fantasy/horror, without having any real focus.
Saga of the Icelanders you play 9th century settlers of Iceland, straight up. No magic, no mysticism, just hard people in a hard land.
I hear good things about Cartel, but I haven't played.
I highly recommend keeping Dungeon World handy, more than once it's been used as the "So, you guys want to hang out tonight? Sure... but what will we do?" kind of game. No planning or prep, characters made on the spot. Sometimes I'll randomly for which old TSR module is used as the jumping off point. Even more fun is to start at a random point within the module as well.
I'm not playing currently, though I have a fair number of times. I'm definitely down to talk about it whenever someone wants.
There are a lot of PbtA games, which is why I consider it a good system to learn. If you like the basic rules structure, there are a dozen really good games out there to play.
Lincoln, you're right, the community is pretty small. I have the perception it's growing, but very, very slowly.
I'm racist. I try not to be, but I understand that I am. That doesn't make me evil. It makes me flawed... which is pretty normal for a human.
As for Seven Samurai, it was actually inspired by John Ford Westerns, so it was kind of fitting that the movie itself would inspire a later Western. Then, there were the Kurosawa films based off of Shakespeare . . .
My point isn't the source of the story. My point is that the person in each culture took the story and presented it through the lens of their own culture. Very few portions of a culture are original or without influence from other cultures (or previous versions of their culture). Borrowing elements from a culture can be done in valid and respectful ways.
It can also be done in disrespectful and harmful ways and there are a lot of examples of such both in contemporary movies and in previous eras.
The Thing That Should Not Be wrote:
Gonna try, but there's soooo much wrong in this post.
Go read the Bill of Rights 1689. Then tell me that no country ever enshrined a right prior to the US Constitution.
The original Constitution didn't even enshrine all white men as being equal, let alone women and people of color. Also, it came after the failed Articles of Confederation (a truly small and limited government). You're also failing to recognize how much of our system was actually based on English common and represented only minor tweaks to the overall system.
Lastly, something can't be both unique and exceptional. Or rather, one of the terms is redundant, and since unique is an absolute term, it should take precedence and just drop the "exceptional". Unless you're using "exceptional" to mean "superior", which case you're contradicting yourself since you say you're not trying to place the US above other nations.
Democracy isn't unique to the US. It didn't originate in the US. Actually, what makes us exceptional (rare/uncommon) is that we were one of the first people's to declare war against our rulers and win. But that doesn't really have that much to do with democracy. Most previous examples were conquered people's regaining their former kingdom/empire/etc or staving off a foreign invader.