Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Starfinder


Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Feeling Cheesed off at show I was enjoying


Television

51 to 100 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It's the lazy writing that I'm upset about.

At this point, the "Kill off/rape the male lead's girlfriend to prove how BAD the bad guy is, and to get the male lead really MAD!" trope just needs to go away.

It's demeaning to women, yes, and it's usually presented as shocking or edgy. But it's not. That trope is so damned overdone, it just screams "I'm the screenwriter and I'M A HACK!!!"


I understand that. I do think it's over used trope. But the fact is this; If this had been a male character and the lead FEMALE character had to react, would that have been any different?

That's just my question. I don't disagree with the dismissal of the trope (IE tossing it out along with some others) but some times it get used because it still remains effective for some people.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Haladir wrote:

It's the lazy writing that I'm upset about.

At this point, the "Kill off/rape the male lead's girlfriend to prove how BAD the bad guy is, and to get the male lead really MAD!" trope just needs to go away.

It's demeaning to women, yes, and it's usually presented as shocking or edgy. But it's not. That trope is so damned overdone, it just screams "I'm the screenwriter and I'M A HACK!!!"

You have no idea...


Well I guess Rysky on your side. So...yeah. I concede!

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Thomas Seitz wrote:
Well I guess Rysky on your side. So...yeah. I concede!

Thank you for agreeing lol

That being said don't throw away your individuality.

Unless you can trade it for Linnorms.

Then do that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Rysky,

I just know when I'm beat. Also I only trade my individuality for linnorms, demon princesses, and maybe paladinhood.


I think y'all deserve medals for watching that POS Shield show. I didn't make it past 3 episodes.

Speaking of The 100 they did get some flack for a female character that was gay getting killed off. The actor was leaving the show for something better and that's how the writers decided to write her character off. /shrug


I know Linnorms is cool. I have a few. Only issues are, they are big, dangerous and smelly critters and it's really difficult to find any storage that will take them...

You're saying I can have some individualities here if I trade?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Most likely.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Thomas Seitz wrote:

I understand that. I do think it's over used trope. But the fact is this; If this had been a male character and the lead FEMALE character had to react, would that have been any different?

That's just my question. I don't disagree with the dismissal of the trope (IE tossing it out along with some others) but some times it get used because it still remains effective for some people.

Question: What TV show has done that? Kill/rape the male Friend so that the female lead is MOTIVATED? I'm curious because I haven't seen this on TV and I don't know if it would be effective to induce the audience's emotional response. Usually when there is a female lead, the Bad Guy threatens violence directly against her, not against her loved ones.

Exception: Superheroines, like Buffy, Wonder Woman, Supergirl and the Bionic Woman see the Bad Guy threaten the Friend. But to my knowledge the Bad Guys never killed/raped the Friend. It's probably because of Network TV and Kid-Friendly programming-hours affecting the level of violence in the scripts, or the assumption that a woman-led show would appeal to an audience that's disinclined to accept rape/murder as a motivator.

My contender for worst-ever TV ending by killing-off-the-characters: "Being Human" (2008-2013). I like to pretend that last season just doesn't exist.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mystic_Snowfang wrote:

The whole D&D makes you evil/a killer/whatever.

*sighs*
So, are people still really buying into that crap?

Saw this post because of the more recent activity on the thread.

It does seem to come up from time to time sadly. So much of a trope that it was actually novel to see the reverse -

Many years ago (back in the 80s) D&D featured in UK detective series Taggart - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0716621/ - a keen D&D group seems to be the link between mysterious deaths, detectives are suspicious, one even sits in on a game to find out more about it - turns out to be a complete red herring in the plot that works really well because we're so used to the 'crazy gamers' portrayals.


Thomas Seitz wrote:

I understand that. I do think it's over used trope. But the fact is this; If this had been a male character and the lead FEMALE character had to react, would that have been any different?

That's just my question. I don't disagree with the dismissal of the trope (IE tossing it out along with some others) but some times it get used because it still remains effective for some people.

It is different.

First, we do react differently to threats to women than to men.

Second, it's not so blatantly overused. Reversing it is doing something different. You're playing with the trope, subverting it, most likely.

Mind you, it gets used because it's effective. Just because it works, doesn't mean it isn't overused.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zeugma wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:

I understand that. I do think it's over used trope. But the fact is this; If this had been a male character and the lead FEMALE character had to react, would that have been any different?

That's just my question. I don't disagree with the dismissal of the trope (IE tossing it out along with some others) but some times it get used because it still remains effective for some people.

Question: What TV show has done that? Kill/rape the male Friend so that the female lead is MOTIVATED? I'm curious because I haven't seen this on TV and I don't know if it would be effective to induce the audience's emotional response. Usually when there is a female lead, the Bad Guy threatens violence directly against her, not against her loved ones.

It's not literally rape or kill, But Xander getting his eye gouged out by the new big bad in the seventh season seems pretty comparable. IN this its more about the trope of "having a big bad doing something super horrible to show how evil he is", so maybe not quite the same trope you are getting at.

But yeah that is about it that I can think of as far as genre/action movies go, excluding Horror. In horror its probably the reverse situation as default, given the Final Girl trope.


My wife enjoys binge-watching crime dramas on Netflix, and recently tore through every available season of NCIS. One of that show's running gags is the grief that Tony (the machismo-obsessed agent) gives McGee (the team's hacker) over his geeky hobbies, which include online RPGs and (IIRC) occasional LARPs. The stale jokes are offset (somewhat) by the fact that in any episode that mentions McGee's gaming, it usually ends up being a plot point that his knowledge of geekdom helps crack the case.

Interestingly, the show also features a lab tech who is an over-the-top goth--but the writers' humor about Abby's lifestyle is consistently sympathetic and affectionate, and it's quite clear that she's the favorite of the team's old-fashioned, curmudgeonly boss, Gibbs.


Haladir wrote:

We've watched through S2E2.

Again, I want to emphasize that we both really do like this series. Our complaints are about how it could have been better.

I have not read the source novels, so I am judging the TV series purely on its own merits.

On the Bechdel Test: The only conversation of any significance between two women so far is in Season 1, when Avasarala visits Holden's mother... and the conversation is about Holden.

There's really no reason that another member of Holden's crew couldn't have been a woman. I mean, they could have written Alex as a woman, and they wouldn't have had to change anything about the character... not even her name!

Another character development that annoyed me is the sexual relationship that developed between Holden and Naomi. From a writing perspective, it seemed really forced. That relationship really seems to be telegraphing the message that a woman isn't really valuable/important to the plot unless she's having sex with the male lead. From that perspective, I don't see why that relationship had to be in the plot. I'm hoping it leads somewhere important plot-wise... as long as that plot-point isn't that Naomi is being set up as Holden's emotional heartstring to pull when the writers kill her off to motivate him. (That trope is such lazy writing.)

I mean, when the writers of Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. did that very thing in Season 3 by killing off Rosalind Price to motivate Coulson to action, I literally screamed at the TV and threw my Roku remote across the room. I then rage-quit watching the show... well, at least until it dropped on Netflix.

You're right. They could have made Alex a woman, and it wouldn't have mattered.

Regarding the romance: it's more natural in the books. The show has compressed the timeline a lot, so that this particular develoment may feel a little too forced. I didn't notice it, but then I have the context from the books available.

Sovereign Court

The few times I have seen a male character killed to bring a female to action has been in crime dramas. The female is in a typically male dominated profession like law enforcement. Basically they flip gender roles, but stick to the script about it in all other concerns.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orville Redenbacher wrote:

I think y'all deserve medals for watching that POS Shield show. I didn't make it past 3 episodes.

Speaking of The 100 they did get some flack for a female character that was gay getting killed off. The actor was leaving the show for something better and that's how the writers decided to write her character off. /shrug

Yeah well your popcorn sucks.


Tim Emrick wrote:


Interestingly, the show also features a lab tech who is an over-the-top goth--but the writers' humor about Abby's lifestyle is consistently sympathetic and affectionate, and it's quite clear that she's the favorite of the team's old-fashioned, curmudgeonly boss, Gibbs.

I am a lab technician in real life, and I also had a goth stage in my life some years ago, so I always had sympathy for her. It's good to see a goth girl who is cheerful and a bit naive instead of all gloomy. She's a great character.


Orville Redenbacher wrote:

I think y'all deserve medals for watching that POS Shield show. I didn't make it past 3 episodes.

Just to be clear we're talking about AGENTS of S.H.I.E.L.D. not the other TV show with Michael Chiklis?

I mean I like both, but one is clearly different from the other.


Yes AOS sucks so bad dont even want to put the effort in spelling it out.

Clearly y'all aint tried my latest batch of delicious popcorn!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Orville,

K. I still don't agree with that or your new batch of popcorn either.


I didn't know there was recipes for pop corn now i'm curious about the popcorn caramel bars things. darn you Orville and your advertising ways!

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Class Deck Subscriber

If I recall correctly, the crowd scene at the end of "Airheads" has Lemmy Kilmister yelling "I play Dungeons and Dragons too!" Since Lemmy is pretty much the baddest sonuvab!*&& to ever live, that cameo told me the film had nothing but love for gamer culture.

Liberty's Edge

Fans of a TV show based on books prefer the show to be as close as possible to the source material. I would still watch it if their was or was not a equal amount of male or female characters. I also don't want either or be put into a show due to social pressure. Especially if it deviates from the source material.

If anything the the main complaints i hear about the books is the swearing and profanity. Im not bothered in the least by it. But apparently some are to the point where they wont read the books or watch show.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
Fans of a TV show based on books prefer the show to be as close as possible to the source material...

Speak for yourself.

Liberty's Edge

I guess I should had said some fans as some here assume I meant all.

Some fans are not bothered by the lack of female characters. Some fans want the source material to be true to the books and not have to include certain genders simply because of social pressure. I hope that clarifies my point. I even bolded it just in case.

It's the same way that Game of Thrones kills off characters left and right. Even favored characters by the majority of the fans. It's true to the books and to Martin vision. I was glad their was no last minute save at a special occasion. It was a powerful, in your face "did this just happen" in the book and in the TV show. Anything else may have made those who know the series only by the TV show happy. It would have angered some who read the books by cheapening the scene imo.

Sczarni

In case anyone still cared about the original topic: The first time the media used fear mongering against DND was in 1979. A young man with depression and drug problems liked to play the game. He larped the game in utility tunnels located underneath Michigan State University. He later killed himself. This inspired a book of fiction- which became a movie of the same title. Tom Hanks played in the film: Mazes and Monsters. The mother sued the school and TSR, and then formed an organization named: Bothered About Dungeons and Dragons (BADD, 1983). They stated the game promoted murder, rape, insanity, prostitution, cannibalism and other various charges. I was a child then, and remember the rumors that he murdered members of his larping group with a knife, and was never seen again. The university closed off public access to these service tunnels. I started playing in the early 80's, before the movie. Just lucky my mom knew better than to listen to the hysteria. We literally played for twelve hours two, or more, times a week. After 2 games, DMing intrigued me and I officially became the all-time DM, for the remainder of that summer and beyond.


Yeah my mother forbade me from playing once I she found out I was playing (some two year after I had been playing yeah we don't talk). We played at my friends house and his dad was our DM only thing that changed was when she would pull up unexpectedly we would throw dice under couches books wherever they couldn't be seen (one time out a window) and put a movie on as if nothing was happening until I hit 18 and tell her I DO WHAT I WANT! but anyways basically she saw some stupid program on TV about it and completely committed to it.


Some of my family members still think this is a hobby for small children and are amazed because my gaming group is composed of grown up people.

Also, here in Spain, most people first heard of tabletop RPGs when a deranged young man killed his parents with a katana, so many people still think that RPGs make you go insane and kill people.

Some people I know even think that we really believe we are the people we roleplay and compare us with Don Quixote!

As I sometimes enjoy talking in character for no reason (as many people who have been into the forum games know) some people who has seen me changing voices in the middle of a conversation doubt I am sane (I doubt it myself xD). Having practiced theatre for many years, I love acting.


I think its the same as mental illness in that it in and of itself is completely unrelated to violent behavior. violent people are violent no matter what their hobbies are. (beware the knitters...)


These days I see quite a few sitcom portrayals of role-playing and they're mostly positive (albeit with the usual "nerds!" joke somewhere along the way). Typically the characters will use an RPG to work through some emotional/relations conflict they're having. I wonder if anyone ever actually does that in real life?


Matthew Downie wrote:
These days I see quite a few sitcom portrayals of role-playing and they're mostly positive (albeit with the usual "nerds!" joke somewhere along the way). Typically the characters will use an RPG to work through some emotional/relations conflict they're having. I wonder if anyone ever actually does that in real life?

I personally do it the man way bottle it up till it explodes and kills you. Its really for the best.


Mental illness is a delicate theme for me because I had some close relatives who suffered it. And I hate how people try to tie some kind of hobbies to it and also the lack of sensitivity with people suffering this kind of disease, as if you had a mental condition you'd have to be a serial killer or something.


But seriously I think that we all probably do it on a MUCH MUCH more subtle way. on TV shows it has to be obvious so everyone can pick up on whats going on, but it would not surprise me to learn most if not all gamers let gaming helping them with some issues.


Kileanna wrote:
Mental illness is a delicate theme for me because I had some close relatives who suffered it. And I hate how people try to tie some kind of hobbies to it and also the lack of sensitivity with people suffering this kind of disease, as if you had a mental condition you'd have to be a serial killer or something.

Its one of those negative stereotype things that people seem to believe but people with mental illnesses have the same rate of violence that the general public does. (not higher or lower) (it runs in my family as well mostly on the female side)


Same in my family, I lost my mother to schyzophrenia and one of my aunts suffers from it.
I've also been through a very hard depression motivated by many events in my life, I cried all day and I only wanted to work all day, do things for other people as I wasn't important and I didn't sleep or eat. I weighted 40 kgs. Getting back into roleplaying helped me to regain my trust in myself, have fun again and socialize with other players. That's why I hate people seeing it as a bad thing, as it helped me a lot to get out of a really dark place.
Now I've got rid of everything that made me unhappy and I'm fully healed, so I regret nothing.


Kileanna wrote:

Same in my family, I lost my mother to schyzophrenia and one of my aunts suffers from it.

I've also been through a very hard depression motivated by many events in my life, I cried all day and I only wanted to work all day, do things for other people as I wasn't important and I didn't sleep or eat. I weighted 40 kgs. Getting back into roleplaying helped me to regain my trust in myself, have fun again and socialize with other players. That's why I hate people seeing it as a bad thing, as it helped me a lot to get out of a really dark place.
Now I've got rid of everything that made me unhappy and I'm fully healed, so I regret nothing.

Its a tool really that can be used positively or even negatively for some people. (just look at some of these this person screw over my character threads.)

I think it lets people express themselves. I've learned a lot about people by playing D&D with them. some of them I wish I hadn't learned about even. -_-


Roleplaying characters is a good tool to do things that you wouldn't do without real consequences. It seems there are some people just want to be free to be total idiots xD
You can learn a lot of a player just seeing how he plays his characters


Quote:
Most people watching the Expanse are fans of the books. I could be wrong and don't have the viewing figures.

The books have sold about 650,000 copies to date in the States, which equates to about 108,000 per book. Being very generous, call it a quarter of a million readers. THE EXPANSE gets 2-3 million viewers (accounting for all methods of watching) in the States and considerably more worldwide, where the show is on Netflix. The book readers are a small percentage of the viewers, which is unsurprising since the books are so new (for context, the first novel was released in mid-2011).

This is pretty much the same for all adaptations of pre-existing media. You can use the book readers as a springboard to help launch the show and build up word-of-mouth, but you have to appeal far beyond the fanbase and look out to new viewers as well.

Liberty's Edge

Werthead wrote:


The books have sold about 650,000 copies to date in the States, which equates to about 108,000 per book. Being very generous, call it a quarter of a million readers. THE EXPANSE gets 2-3 million viewers (accounting for all methods of watching) in the States and considerably more worldwide, where the show is on Netflix. The book readers are a small percentage of the viewers, which is unsurprising since the books are so new (for context, the first novel was released in mid-2011).

Good to know about the number of books sold. I enjoyed the first three books. I have heard mixed reviews about books 4-6. I'm still going to read them anyway as I enjoy both the show and the books and Science Fiction in general

Werthead wrote:


This is pretty much the same for all adaptations of pre-existing media. You can use the book readers as a springboard to help launch the show and build up word-of-mouth, but you have to appeal far beyond the fanbase and look out to new viewers as well.

Totally agree and seconded. The thing about trying something new is that it may work and bring in new viewers. As it may not and lose viewers. Beyond good writing I don't think there is a perfect formula to get more viewers. Than and focusing on what the majority of the fanbase wants. I'm not saying don't try anything new. Just don't put it into a show or any kind of medium like a book or comic. Without making sure a large amount of the fans wants it.

Marvel comics not only tried putting more politics and social issues in their comics. They did it so poorly imo that it felt like they were forcing it on the readers. The end result was causal reader like myself either stopped buying or in my case started picking and choosing what titles I wanted to read. While also finding out the hard way those that do want those stories are either not a large enough demographic or don't buy comics. Going forward your still going to see more politics and social awareness and issues in their stories. They won't force it on the reader. If you don't believe me look it up.

Though I do wish Martin would finish his series.

51 to 100 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Community / Gamer Life / Television / Feeling Cheesed off at show I was enjoying All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.