PDA

View Full Version : Most annoying cultural mutation?



Gnoman
2012-03-01, 07:16 PM
It happens a lot. You have this character or idea that is widely known in general media. It's so well known that random stand-up comics sometimes reference it during an unrelated speil. Too bad that when you look at the actual, original work, it's not there. Or, there's some basic bits of it, but it is fairly normal and not out of place, while everyone makes it out to be some huge, defining feature.


For Example:

James Tiberius Kirk, Sex god.

The Mutation:

McCoy says something emotianal
Kirk sleeps with someone
Spock says something logical
Kirk Sleeps with Someone
Scotty whines about his engines
Kirk Sleeps with someone

Opening credits roll

The Work:

Kirk has slightly fewer romantic interests than the standard TV character for his era. He sleeps with (IIRC) 2 women through the course of the series.

What such mutations do you find most annoying.

Brother Oni
2012-03-01, 07:30 PM
Kirk has slightly fewer romantic interests than the standard TV character for his era. He sleeps with (IIRC) 2 women through the course of the series.

There was an episode where he beamed down to a planet and within 20 or so seconds, he had a female lovingly depicted in close up with a soft focus lens. Yes, Kirk may not be a sex god, but that doesn't mean he can't attract the ladies. :smalltongue:

In answer to the original question, probably the elevation of Chuck Norris from competent martial artist with a mediocre film and TV career to the bastion of internet hardman.
Some of his more recent press releases/endorsements have pretty much shot that reputation to pieces (too political for this board), but the meme still endures.

Traab
2012-03-02, 09:14 AM
Yeah, you would think that walker texas ranger would have fixed that meme, considering it had all the martial arts talent of Relic Hunter with Tia Carrere. In other words, the camera angle changes every time a punch or kick is thrown to make it look like he is still CAPABLE of throwing effective punches and kicks.

Terraoblivion
2012-03-02, 09:33 AM
Alice Margatroid is a sarcastic mad scientist with an odd fondness for using dolls as tools, so naturally people portray her as a neurotic wretch who thinks her dolls are alive and who has no goal in life other than sleeping with her neighbor.

Brother Oni
2012-03-02, 09:40 AM
Yeah, you would think that walker texas ranger would have fixed that meme, considering it had all the martial arts talent of Relic Hunter with Tia Carrere. In other words, the camera angle changes every time a punch or kick is thrown to make it look like he is still CAPABLE of throwing effective punches and kicks.

Tia Carrere is very pretty eye candy plus Relic Hunter doesn't take itself too seriously, so I don't mind it too much. :smallbiggrin:

I haven't seen an episode of Walker, Texas Ranger, but if Sammo Hung can still do decent martial arts choreography in Martial Law, you would have thought Norris could still do it. :smallsigh:

Nerd-o-rama
2012-03-02, 09:44 AM
Kirk's reputation comes more from Shatner's smug ham attitude and carefully-prepped good looks in the 60's than anything that actually happens on-screen, really. That, and Star Trek pretty much kicked off fanfiction as a cultural phenomenon in America.

And really, Chuck Norris's reputation took off with Walker (or more accurately, the random clips of it played on Late Night with Conan O'Brian) simply because Walker: Texas Ranger is that rigoddamnediculous in places.

Traab
2012-03-02, 10:08 AM
Tia Carrere is very pretty eye candy plus Relic Hunter doesn't take itself too seriously, so I don't mind it too much. :smallbiggrin:

I haven't seen an episode of Walker, Texas Ranger, but if Sammo Hung can still do decent martial arts choreography in Martial Law, you would have thought Norris could still do it. :smallsigh:

Too be fair, the walker fight scenes arent quite as stupid, mainly because punching is still within chuck norris ability to do. Its the kicking that causes the camera to very quickly switch away from his face as some blurry stunt double does all the work. Im just thinking that norris took a bit more battle damage over the course of his career than hung, so he isnt capable of pulling off impressive moves anymore.

MLai
2012-03-02, 10:11 AM
I saw Chuck cage-fight with Macho Man Randy Savage in 1 episode. He still got it back then.

And really, define "mediocre". You wish you had half his career.

The Glyphstone
2012-03-02, 10:21 AM
Well, aside from W:TR, he's most famous for being killed by Bruce Lee - possibly mediocre, but at least it's dying to the best.

Eldariel
2012-03-02, 10:30 AM
And really, Chuck Norris's reputation took off with Walker (or more accurately, the random clips of it played on Late Night with Conan O'Brian) simply because Walker: Texas Ranger is that rigoddamnediculous in places.

Meh, I'd say Way of the Dragon and the fact that Bruce Lee is pretty much martial arts personified kicked it off more than anything. After the Dragon passed away, well, take the man to have ever taken a round from him (on screen).

IrnBruAddict
2012-03-02, 10:31 AM
Alice Margatroid is a sarcastic mad scientist with an odd fondness for using dolls as tools, so naturally people portray her as a neurotic wretch who thinks her dolls are alive and who has no goal in life other than sleeping with her neighbor.

True, people forget she is a badass Ex-level Magician who dislikes company and finds Marisa annoying but still a friend, but make her a raging lesbian stalker in a love triangle.

Reimu almost has it as bad. In games she is lazy, somewhat selfish, reckless and quick to solve problems with violence (because that is more often than not the fastest way to solve things in Gensokyo). She is basically Nanoha, beats up people and makes them her friends, just not quite as nice. In many works she is a broke and angry Miko who bullies people, abuses her powers, cares more for money than friends, tries to steal the spotlight and is a pretty despicable person people only put up with due to her being hacked out and nearly unbeatably. Heck, some just flat out portray her as a villain.

Traab
2012-03-02, 10:37 AM
I saw Chuck cage-fight with Macho Man Randy Savage in 1 episode. He still got it back then.

And really, define "mediocre". You wish you had half his career.

True, I do wish I had half his career, but that doesnt change the fact that his movie career wasnt exactly a laundry list of oscar winning titles now was it? Without looking it up on wiki i cant even think of more than a couple of the movies he has starred in. He didnt really have a lot of big movie hits. Even Way of the Dragon is more of a hit because of bruce lee, norris just happens to be in it briefly.

Terraoblivion
2012-03-02, 10:59 AM
True, people forget she is a badass Ex-level Magician who dislikes company and finds Marisa annoying but still a friend, but make her a raging lesbian stalker in a love triangle.

Though calling Alice Ex-level is somewhat inaccurate, that's only when she uses her grimoire which she seemingly never does, she's only fairly average if she doesn't according to PMiSS. I also don't think there's anything inherently wrong about shipping her and Marisa, you just need to avoid the patheticness, stalking aspect and assorted yandere traits.


Reimu almost has it as bad. In games she is lazy, somewhat selfish, reckless and quick to solve problems with violence (because that is more often than not the fastest way to solve things in Gensokyo). She is basically Nanoha, beats up people and makes them her friends, just not quite as nice. In many works she is a broke and angry Miko who bullies people, abuses her powers, cares more for money than friends, tries to steal the spotlight and is a pretty despicable person people only put up with due to her being hacked out and nearly unbeatably. Heck, some just flat out portray her as a villain.

There are people who have it worse than Reimu, though rarely as bad as Alice.

Take Yuyuko, in the games and canon material she's a clever ghost who enjoys messing with others, though she cares about them, and wants to enjoy death as much as possible. In most fan portrayals her entire personality is reduced to simply loving food and especially to eat Mystia.

Or what about Byakuren? A messianic figure who might be a bit too eager to save people who don't really need it, yet often gets reduced to a ditzy moeblob used for fanservice.

Actually, listing the Touhou characters who doesn't get horribly misrepresented is probably easier, though some fan preferred views are better than canon. Aloof, cool Sakuya is better than airheaded Sakuya who fails at everything not narrowly related to housekeeping, for example.

Yora
2012-03-02, 11:06 AM
Chuck Norris is funny, because it's obvious to anyone that the whole thing is just collective gooding around. And I assume everyone is in on the joke, so it doesn't really apply here.

Nerd-o-rama
2012-03-02, 11:17 AM
Chuck Norris is funny, because it's obvious to anyone that the whole thing is just collective gooding around. And I assume everyone is in on the joke, so it doesn't really apply here.

Never assume anything about people you meet on the internet. Especially a sense of humor.

dehro
2012-03-02, 11:43 AM
based on the endless "intelligent debates" about who is more badass and who would be the best fighter between bruce lee, chuck norris and half a dozen other hollywood fighters... no, I d'say ther world is sadly full of people who take them much more seriously than they do or ever did themselves

Oindoth
2012-03-02, 12:05 PM
What's the trope for this again? Flanderization? I think that's it, at any rate. Or is it Memetic Mutation?

Terraoblivion
2012-03-02, 12:17 PM
Sometimes it's one and sometimes the other. I mean Chuck Norris was never portrayed as a godlike superhuman, yet that's how the jokes that some people take seriously portray him. Similarly Alice Margatroid has almost nothing in common with the common fan portrayals in official material. These would be memetic mutation.

On the other hand, Kirk does have a lot of love interests even if he doesn't act on it anywhere near as much as his reputation would have you believe. This on the other hand is flanderization.

Nerd-o-rama
2012-03-02, 12:44 PM
Flanderization is also meant to be in-universe, as a character becomes more and more tied to one personality quirk at the expense of the rest of their character, whereas memetic mutation is a fan phenomenon. However, a) TV Tropes definitions are always blurry and b) a fandom overemphasizing an established character trait isn't all that different from the writers doing it.

MCerberus
2012-03-02, 12:52 PM
I would argue Machiavelli's work became a justification to do what he was railing against.

hamishspence
2012-03-02, 01:01 PM
That might be something of an oversimplification- nearly every argument in The Prince is repeated in The Discourses- which is a guide to what works best for republics.

He certainly did rail against "tyrants" a lot though.

Tengu_temp
2012-03-02, 01:49 PM
What's the trope for this again? Flanderization? I think that's it, at any rate. Or is it Memetic Mutation?

Don't forget Common Knowledge and Canon Defilement. Different specific examples fall under different tropes.

What generally annoys me is when fandoms interpret any kind of relationship between two characters as obviously romantic, which more often than not happens if those characters are both male or both female. Best example of this behaviour is probably Gundam Wing - if you listened to the fanbase, you'd think that show is filled to the brim with homosexual lust between the main characters, as opposed to Trowa and Quattre being implied to be gay and all the other Wing Boys having female love interests.

Oh, and when you point out to such fandoms that they're looking at their show through shipping goggles and seeing subtext when there isn't any? Most of the time, they will call you a homophobe.

Terraoblivion
2012-03-02, 01:57 PM
Be fair now, it happens a lot with heterosexual shipping too. It's extremely common in Harry Potter fanfic, quite common in at least older Star Trek fanfic and let's not even mention Avatar the Last Airbender here. Doesn't make it any less annoying in situations such as Gundam Wing, of course, but don't act like it's only slashers who do it.

Traab
2012-03-02, 02:11 PM
Be fair now, it happens a lot with heterosexual shipping too. It's extremely common in Harry Potter fanfic, quite common in at least older Star Trek fanfic and let's not even mention Avatar the Last Airbender here. Doesn't make it any less annoying in situations such as Gundam Wing, of course, but don't act like it's only slashers who do it.

Its common in fanfic period. The real trope title should be, Everyone Wants Sex With Everyone. Everything is used as proof that whatever pairing to full blown harem the author wants, makes sense. They hate each other? Repressed sexual tension. They are friends? They obviously want to sex each other up, but are afraid to ruin their friendship. They never actually interact with each other? Obviously they are just shy and secretly love each other. Relative age, gender, or even relationships dont matter, everyone wants to bone everyone. Doesnt matter if its harrys own 125 year old granfather, or that merperson in the lake. It doesnt matter if its tsunami from the wave arc, or one of the guys in the bikochu beetle arc, or tsunade herself, they all secretly want sex with naruto. It could be spike, giles, the mayor, or cordelia, everyone wants to bend buffy over a bench. Everyone wants to have sex with everyone else.

IrnBruAddict
2012-03-02, 02:17 PM
Though calling Alice Ex-level is somewhat inaccurate, that's only when she uses her grimoire which she seemingly never does, she's only fairly average if she doesn't according to PMiSS. I also don't think there's anything inherently wrong about shipping her and Marisa, you just need to avoid the patheticness, stalking aspect and assorted yandere traits.

Yeah but it's implied that she is always holding back and is actually much stronger than Marisa (who regularly goes up against stage 6 bosses). Withut her grimoire she is easily stage 5 level, which is the level of most of the player characters. With her grimoire she is easily Ex-Level, I'd have a tough time imagining anyone but Reimu, Yuuka, Yukari or one of the Oni (not holding back) to beat her.

Alice and Marisa is okay if its done right, but so often is done bad that I can't stomach it. Same with Meiling/Sakuya, it works much better with canon characters rather than fanon characters.


There are people who have it worse than Reimu, though rarely as bad as Alice.

Kaguya, Shou, China, Tenshi and Sanae.


Actually, listing the Touhou characters who doesn't get horribly misrepresented is probably easier

Lily White. Ain't hard to mess up happy, likes to shoot stuff and loves spring. So simple you have to love her. :smallbiggrin: And Lazy Troll Yukari is more common and canon than compotent Yukari.


I also hate that Ulquiorra dude from Bleach. He is portrayed as a sexy misunderstood Emo bishonen by the fan girls but was really just a monster who killed without remorees and had little to no feelings for anything, not even himself. Same with Sasuke and Sephiroth. Killing people doesn't make you misunderstood it makes you bad! Funny how non-pretty-boys are allowed to be bad guys but not the male models.

Tengu_temp
2012-03-02, 03:03 PM
Be fair now, it happens a lot with heterosexual shipping too. It's extremely common in Harry Potter fanfic, quite common in at least older Star Trek fanfic and let's not even mention Avatar the Last Airbender here. Doesn't make it any less annoying in situations such as Gundam Wing, of course, but don't act like it's only slashers who do it.

You're correct, but do note that I'm not just talking about rabid shippers. I mean situations where the shipping gets so crazy that it affects the perception of people who haven't even seen the show. Which is why I went with Gundam Wing - everyone and their dog knows that this anime is filled to the brim with hoyay, right? Except it really isn't. That's just the fandom.

McStabbington
2012-03-02, 03:39 PM
That might be something of an oversimplification- nearly every argument in The Prince is repeated in The Discourses- which is a guide to what works best for republics.

He certainly did rail against "tyrants" a lot though.

It's been about 5 years since I read the Discourses on Livy, and longer since I read The Prince, but the difference I saw between the former and the latter was "If you knuckleheads don't have the power to establish your own principality, can you at least be decent enough to let us have a republic instead?" versus "Supposing you did have a principality, here is how you would run it right." The Discourses were if anything a lament that that the people of Italy got the worst of all possible worlds: none of the various actors in Italy had the strength to establish a principality of their own, but they all had the strength to stop someone else from establishing one. And in the meantime, they kept bleeding the strength of Italy in pointless internal conflicts.

That being said, if we're talking philosophy, the two people who have endured the biggest memetic mutation were Socrates and Hobbes. Socrates became something of a mascot for the Enlightenment, as a secular saint put to death by the ignorant hordes because he dared to seek truth. This is a mutation in two ways. First, while the Socrates that Plato writes has a Swiss watch of a mind, and whom could clearly work through complex formally-valid logical deductions before formal logic as a discipline had even been invented, it would be . . . I guess implausible would be best word, to say that Socrates was simply seeking for truth. The texts make clear that Socrates disdained democracy, and whenever he venerates a government, what he venerates sounds a lot like Sparta ruled by men like Socrates. Which given his personal history as a soldier who fought for Athens in the Peloponnesian War, a war which Athens both started and lost to Sparta, is unsurprising but still a legitimate threat to Athenian order and stability.

Second, Socrates never holds himself out as a particularly knowledgable man. He's clearly extremely intelligent and shrewd, but he spends the vast majority of his time taking apart someone else's ideas. The only time we see him actually presenting his own philosophical ideas, in the Parmenides, is also the only Platonic dialogue where Socrates loses the debate, with Parmenides shredding Socrates' presentation.

As for Hobbes, most people think of him simply as a cynical version of John Locke. Which means that he doesn't get nearly enough credit for the groundwork he did do laying down some ideas that underpin modern democratic society. The notion that all men are created equal, for instance, isn't really a Lockean notion so much as it's a Hobbesian notion. It's just that Hobbes turned around and then used that radical equality to argue for a very powerful state: in the state of nature, we're all such a threat to one another that no man alone and by himself is safe from any of the others. The fact that Hobbes could at once prop up the monarchy while at the same time hacking at the ideas that underpin it, namely that some men are by nature or gift of God better and more deserving of power than others, really doesn't get enough credit.

Gnoman
2012-03-02, 04:48 PM
Second, Socrates never holds himself out as a particularly knowledgable man. He's clearly extremely intelligent and shrewd, but he spends the vast majority of his time taking apart someone else's ideas. The only time we see him actually presenting his own philosophical ideas, in the Parmenides, is also the only Platonic dialogue where Socrates loses the debate, with Parmenides shredding Socrates' presentation.


That's somewhat debatable. You can show a lot of ideas by the way you attack somebody's ideas, which is what I find Socrates to be most famous for.

Terraoblivion
2012-03-02, 04:57 PM
You're correct, but do note that I'm not just talking about rabid shippers. I mean situations where the shipping gets so crazy that it affects the perception of people who haven't even seen the show. Which is why I went with Gundam Wing - everyone and their dog knows that this anime is filled to the brim with hoyay, right? Except it really isn't. That's just the fandom.

And if you were to listen to the Star Trek fandom then TOS was all about Kirk sleeping with hot aliens, while Spock hung around and was cool. Most of the fandom is quite clear that Kirk/Spock slash is the work of other fans who are doing it wrong.

And let's not touch the shipwars over heterosexual ships in Avatar. I know you know quite a bit about the conflicts between Zutarans and supporters of Kataang. They certainly shaped how the fandom appeared while the show was airing and what impression it gave off about the show.

Drascin
2012-03-02, 05:11 PM
Ah, I see the one which annoys me most, the whole "relationships that are not romantic DO NOT EXIST EVER!" thing, was already mentioned. Dammit, guys, sometimes a friendship is just a friendship and not repressed feelings of lust!

Whiffet
2012-03-02, 05:49 PM
Ah, I see the one which annoys me most, the whole "relationships that are not romantic DO NOT EXIST EVER!" thing, was already mentioned. Dammit, guys, sometimes a friendship is just a friendship and not repressed feelings of lust!

Any sufficiently advanced relationship is indistinguishable from romance.
With varying definitions of "sufficiently advanced."

On topic: I used to be a pretty huge South Park fan. I don't like most episodes from the past couple years, but before then it was still pretty good. Anyway, it always kinda bothered me if I heard people imply the show was literally nothing but swearing kids and dirty jokes. I mean, yes, that's there, the show is rated MA for a reason, but there was still more to it than that. (Nowadays I wouldn't argue if someone said the show was usually made up of pop-culture references, though.) And sometimes I would see something where literally every other word was a swear and I would hear people comment, "Wow, that sounds like South Park." No, not even South Park characters curse anywhere near that often, guys.

Not the most annoying cultural perception by a long shot, and I don't see people saying it as often as I used to, but it was on my mind because a friend pointed out that a new season starts this month. I've been trying to decide if I should watch or not.

Prime32
2012-03-02, 05:59 PM
There are people who have it worse than Reimu, though rarely as bad as Alice.While Creepy Stalker Alice is inaccurate, in the right hands it can be hilarious.

Other characters who get it bad:
Kaguya: Dignified princess -> Tracksuited WoW player
Shikieiki: Tall woman who lectures people only because she hates seeing them punished -> Midget who sends people to Hell for arbitrary reasons (I blame this vid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1E2nN5Fwzk))
Aya: Tabloid journalist -> Panty thief
Remilia: Powerful but somewhat childish vampire -> Starts the same, but bursts into tears after two seconds


Reimu almost has it as bad. In games she is lazy, somewhat selfish, reckless and quick to solve problems with violence (because that is more often than not the fastest way to solve things in Gensokyo). She is basically Nanoha, beats up people and makes them her friends, just not quite as nice. In many works she is a broke and angry Miko who bullies people, abuses her powers, cares more for money than friends, tries to steal the spotlight and is a pretty despicable person people only put up with due to her being hacked out and nearly unbeatably. Heck, some just flat out portray her as a villain.Well I've seen fanworks that depict Nanoha as a sadist...

IrnBruAddict
2012-03-02, 06:37 PM
China: Loyal in slow gate guard > Unkillable idiot who takes a knife to the head
Sanae: Noraml girl trying get used to a strange world > crazy violent molester
Ran: Loving adoptive mother and servant > Pedophile streaker
Rumia: Slow human-eating monster > Idiot who only knows 3 words
Tenshi: Strong but bored celestial > Masochist (this is the worst one after Remi IMO)

That said I do love stupid Mokou. Kaguya wants something destroyed, she makes a contest with Mokou to see who can destroy it faster. Kaguya gets what she wants, Mokou thinks she pulled one over on Kaguya. Love it!


Well I've seen fanworks that depict Nanoha as a sadist...

I just finished watching Strikers this week and can kinda see it. They both love the whole Defeat Means Friendship thing. The worse they beat you, the more they love you.

Nerd-o-rama
2012-03-02, 07:26 PM
You mean this?

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y66/al0013/1244257717970.jpg

Because this is pretty accurate.

IrnBruAddict
2012-03-02, 08:01 PM
You have no idea how happy that made me :smallbiggrin:

The Touhou version of that would be Kaguya x Mokou, killing each other is their foreplay.

Nerd-o-rama
2012-03-02, 08:08 PM
*booru sites don't allow hotlinking, by the way.

grimbold
2012-03-02, 08:19 PM
there was a cracked article (http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-famous-pop-culture-moments-everyone-remembers-incorrectly/) about ths today...
Vader seriously never said Luke I am your father

IrnBruAddict
2012-03-02, 08:47 PM
Great, now I'm mad about the whole 'Humpty Dumpty is an egg' thing. Least there was the cool Ricky Gervais rant about it.

But seriously, how do we all know he's an egg?

McStabbington
2012-03-02, 08:58 PM
That's somewhat debatable. You can show a lot of ideas by the way you attack somebody's ideas, which is what I find Socrates to be most famous for.

That's not incompatible with what I said; as a matter of fact, it plays very much into the first point I made about the man. But if you look simply at what he says, he does not hold himself out as particularly knowledgable. If anything, it's other people who get ticked at him and demand that if he's such a smartypants, why doesn't he say what he thinks is right. To which he responds, John Stewart style, by saying that he really doesn't have an argument to present. He just finds your argument full of logical holes.

The most famous story about Socrates from Socrates' own day bears this out. According to legend, someone asked the Oracle of Delphi who the wisest man in Greece was. The Oracle replied "Socrates." When someone mentioned it to him, Socrates responded by saying the only reason it might be true is because he's aware of just how much he doesn't know. While he might have been facetious, it's nevertheless true that he puts forward his own ideas only once in a Platonic dialogue, and Parmenides wipes the floor with said idea. Which goes to show just how much respect the ancient Greeks had for Parmenides.

Traab
2012-03-02, 11:09 PM
Any sufficiently advanced relationship is indistinguishable from romance.
With varying definitions of "sufficiently advanced."

On topic: I used to be a pretty huge South Park fan. I don't like most episodes from the past couple years, but before then it was still pretty good. Anyway, it always kinda bothered me if I heard people imply the show was literally nothing but swearing kids and dirty jokes. I mean, yes, that's there, the show is rated MA for a reason, but there was still more to it than that. (Nowadays I wouldn't argue if someone said the show was usually made up of pop-culture references, though.) And sometimes I would see something where literally every other word was a swear and I would hear people comment, "Wow, that sounds like South Park." No, not even South Park characters curse anywhere near that often, guys.

Not the most annoying cultural perception by a long shot, and I don't see people saying it as often as I used to, but it was on my mind because a friend pointed out that a new season starts this month. I've been trying to decide if I should watch or not.

Originally it was all about being as shocking and filthy as they could get away with. The later seasons have been mostly talking about current events in the most shocking way Trey and crew can get their own personal views across. Whether its voting, scientology, mel gibson going insane, or the hunt for bin laden, if it was a big news story, there was probably an episode of south park about it. Its honestly the main reason I think the show still exists. You can only kill kenny so often before it gets boring. The style of episode it had early on can only stay funny for so long before it stops being shocking enough to make you laugh, and just boring/gross.

Fri
2012-03-02, 11:23 PM
Don't forget Common Knowledge and Canon Defilement. Different specific examples fall under different tropes.

What generally annoys me is when fandoms interpret any kind of relationship between two characters as obviously romantic, which more often than not happens if those characters are both male or both female. Best example of this behaviour is probably Gundam Wing - if you listened to the fanbase, you'd think that show is filled to the brim with homosexual lust between the main characters, as opposed to Trowa and Quattre being implied to be gay and all the other Wing Boys having female love interests.

Oh, and when you point out to such fandoms that they're looking at their show through shipping goggles and seeing subtext when there isn't any? Most of the time, they will call you a homophobe.

Oh man, this. I remember people who argue that Bert and Ernie should come out of the closet.

H Birchgrove
2012-03-02, 11:35 PM
People who claim Batman and Robin (**** Grayson) are gay (for each other). :smallannoyed:

MCerberus
2012-03-02, 11:44 PM
People who claim Batman and Robin (**** Grayson) are gay (for each other). :smallannoyed:

Speaking of which, all of the hobbits, especially after the movies came out.

Tiki Snakes
2012-03-03, 01:50 AM
The LOTR movies were a tiny bit on the homoerotically suggestive side in places, to be fair. A good amount of it existed in the books, viewed through modern eyes, but some of the directing seemed almost to play up to it really.

Also, I've decided that purely for laughs, Bert and Ernie SHOULD come out (and be revealed as Gay Room-mates who have no interest in each other).

factotum
2012-03-03, 01:57 AM
Most of the fandom is quite clear that Kirk/Spock slash is the work of other fans who are doing it wrong.


I'm sure there was a comment from Kirk in a footnote in the novelisation of "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" where he mentioned loads of people thinking he and Spock had something going, and he just points out that if he *was* that way inclined he'd probably find a partner who was sexually active a bit more often than once every seven years... :smallwink:

MLai
2012-03-03, 01:59 AM
I also hate that Ulquiorra dude from Bleach. He is portrayed as a sexy misunderstood Emo bishonen by the fan girls but was really just a monster who killed without remorees and had little to no feelings for anything, not even himself.
I never understood the point of this emo-facepaint character beyond being a mid-boss. He never had a personality, and just seemed to be evil for evil's sake. Also exactly why was he so loyal to Eizen? I kept waiting for some characterization but never saw any; I stopped reading at the point when he first turned into Devilman.

Did he ever get a character moment afterwards?

dehro
2012-03-03, 05:00 AM
People who claim Batman and Robin (**** Grayson) are gay (for each other). :smallannoyed:

serendipitous censorship there..
then again...didn't they sleep together in one big bed? :smalltongue:

Omergideon
2012-03-03, 07:27 AM
The LOTR movies were a tiny bit on the homoerotically suggestive side in places, to be fair. A good amount of it existed in the books, viewed through modern eyes, but some of the directing seemed almost to play up to it really.

Also, I've decided that purely for laughs, Bert and Ernie SHOULD come out (and be revealed as Gay Room-mates who have no interest in each other).

That would be funny.

But the way modern eyes reinterpret what was perfectly normal behaviour towards one's peers as "they is so obviously Gay for each other" does get pretty annoying in fandoms. Kind of like how the Dandy of the 1700s, then the epitomy of manly men, is now seen as an efemmenate wuss and evidently Gay. It is a disservice to the original intent. Sometimes they can make a good joke out of it, like Watson and Holmes in Sherlock. But more often it leads to bad fan-fiction based on nothing more than people thinking characters x and z are pretty and so need to be together.

I remember one time I was reading a fan idea that said that Sam and Dean Winchester had to be gay for each other because "just being brothers would not make them that close". I mean to me that just sounds ridiculous and missing part of the point of their brotherly relationship.


But then shipping based on Ho Yay, foe Yay, straight yay or any other subtext annoys me because doing so usually wrecks existing characters personalities.


And in general Flanderisation is the most annoying trope in comedies I have ever seen. Rich nuanced and 3D characters like Joey from friends, or Monica, become one note jokes with the same punchline every time. It truly pisses me off. Especially since in the public eye the flanderised version seems to come first, and be more well known, than the interesting one.

IrnBruAddict
2012-03-03, 07:35 AM
I never understood the point of this emo-facepaint character beyond being a mid-boss. He never had a personality, and just seemed to be evil for evil's sake. Also exactly why was he so loyal to Eizen? I kept waiting for some characterization but never saw any; I stopped reading at the point when he first turned into Devilman.

Did he ever get a character moment afterwards?

Well he went even more Devilman and killed Ichigo, who came back (surprise surprise). He did some more stuff
Gets totally kirbstomped by Super Evil Ichigo, then stopped Super Evil Ichigo from killing Ishida before turning to dust but never once showed anything like a personality other than: I dont have a heart, that makes me sad and lonely so I wanna kill you. Hell, even Nemu had more of a personality than him and she's a bloody robot (kinda). He was just pointless in the end.

MLai
2012-03-03, 08:33 AM
Wow, that bad?
I at least expected Ulquiorra to pull a Naruto flashback moment before the climax of the battle, where we learn all about his wangsty backstory and then the heroes spout some feel-good nonsense which trumps his evil philosophy thus making him lose heart/spirit and admit defeat.
Not even that, huh? Just show up for chapters and chapters, monotone emo, and then die. :smallfrown:

dehro
2012-03-03, 09:51 AM
The LOTR movies were a tiny bit on the homoerotically suggestive side in places, to be fair. A good amount of it existed in the books, viewed through modern eyes, but some of the directing seemed almost to play up to it really.

wuh??:smallconfused:(did I miss that orcs and uruk-hai have the hots for one another or something?)

SlyGuyMcFly
2012-03-03, 10:13 AM
The LOTR movies were a tiny bit on the homoerotically suggestive side in places, to be fair. A good amount of it existed in the books, viewed through modern eyes, but some of the directing seemed almost to play up to it really.

I dunno, didn't really notice anything of the sort. It has been a while since I last saw them though, maybe I just filtered it out. Now, the new Sherlock Holmes movies, on the other hand... :smallbiggrin:

Traab
2012-03-03, 12:03 PM
wuh??:smallconfused:(did I miss that orcs and uruk-hai have the hots for one another or something?)

Oh come on now, im terrible at catching subtext and even I thought the movie frodo and sam were a bit. . . off. Especially sam. In the books he came off as an utterly loyal servant, which honestly is odd since he was a freaking gardener for frodo, not a loyal bodyservant. In the movie it just seemed a bit more love based than anything else.

I also dislike the way they basically cut out merry and pippin growing up and becoming soldiers of rohan/gondor. Yeah they had the whole oath taking scene and pippin singing, but in the books there were all sorts of scenes that seemed dedicated to making them grow up and mature. Instead they stayed almost children right up till the end.

Weezer
2012-03-03, 04:51 PM
I dunno, didn't really notice anything of the sort. It has been a while since I last saw them though, maybe I just filtered it out. Now, the new Sherlock Holmes movies, on the other hand... :smallbiggrin:

Yup, it's definitely there. Not really with Merry/Pippen at all, but between Frodo and Sam, especially from Sam towards Frodo there is a very clear homoerotic text (I hesitate to even call it subtext, it's pretty obvious).

dehro
2012-03-03, 05:57 PM
Yup, it's definitely there. Not really with Merry/Pippen at all, but between Frodo and Sam, especially from Sam towards Frodo there is a very clear homoerotic text (I hesitate to even call it subtext, it's pretty obvious).

fair enough...movie Sam does seem more than a little fond of movie Frodo.
in the books however I definitely don't see it.
the parallel with brothers in arms/nobleman and his trusted servant/officer and his batsman is just too strong and, I feel, consistend with Tolkien's persona and his experiences in ww1, for me to see anything but that in the book.
as for Merry and Pippin...I think Stephen Fry would say that the wish is father to the thought, there..as for me..I just don't see it at all.

Tiki Snakes
2012-03-03, 06:18 PM
fair enough...movie Sam does seem more than a little fond of movie Frodo.
in the books however I definitely don't see it.


Pretty much this, yeah.
Though the scene where the various Hobbits frolick naked on the moors after having been rescued by Tom Bombadil was pretty unexpected, in the books.

MCerberus
2012-03-03, 06:49 PM
Pretty much this, yeah.
Though the scene where the various Hobbits frolick naked on the moors after having been rescued by Tom Bombadil was pretty unexpected, in the books.

Common sense has a restraining order against Tom.

darthbobcat
2012-03-04, 02:55 AM
Common sense has a restraining order against Tom.

So THAT'S why he couldn't go with them! He doesn't have a restraining order, he's under house arrest!

dehro
2012-03-04, 08:48 AM
Pretty much this, yeah.
Though the scene where the various Hobbits frolick naked on the moors after having been rescued by Tom Bombadil was pretty unexpected, in the books.

so much so that I had in fact managed to succesfully remove it from memory, until now.
thankyouverymuch:smallmad:

DomaDoma
2012-03-04, 09:10 AM
I always thought Frodo was the gay one, myself.

The Glyphstone
2012-03-04, 09:15 AM
Sam ends up marrying Rosie and has at least one kid in the epilogue, doesn't he?

hamishspence
2012-03-04, 09:18 AM
He does. Frodo in fact lists a whole bunch of kids Sam's going to have:

"But you are my heir: all that I had and might have I leave to you. And also you have Rose, and Elanor, and Frodo-lad will come, and Rosie-lass, and Merry, and Goldilocks, and Pippin, and perhaps more that I cannot see."

GolemsVoice
2012-03-04, 09:28 AM
That being said, if we're talking philosophy, the two people who have endured the biggest memetic mutation were Socrates and Hobbes. Socrates became something of a mascot for the Enlightenment, as a secular saint put to death by the ignorant hordes because he dared to seek truth. This is a mutation in two ways. First, while the Socrates that Plato writes has a Swiss watch of a mind, and whom could clearly work through complex formally-valid logical deductions before formal logic as a discipline had even been invented, it would be . . . I guess implausible would be best word, to say that Socrates was simply seeking for truth. The texts make clear that Socrates disdained democracy, and whenever he venerates a government, what he venerates sounds a lot like Sparta ruled by men like Socrates. Which given his personal history as a soldier who fought for Athens in the Peloponnesian War, a war which Athens both started and lost to Sparta, is unsurprising but still a legitimate threat to Athenian order and stability.
I guess Nietzsche sometimes get's the same treatment. While his ideas are kinda dubious, he sometimes get's reduced to "ARYAN UBERMENSCH JA JA!"

Tiki Snakes
2012-03-04, 09:28 AM
Sam, returning to the Shire can't wait to see Rosie again and propose.
Frodo then decides that he must move away Leave the continent altogether.

Which are of course entirely unrelated facts. Until Cultural Mutation gets involved.
See what I did there? Hello, topic!

The Glyphstone
2012-03-04, 09:34 AM
Sam, returning to the Shire can't wait to see Rosie again and propose.
Frodo then decides that he must move away Leave the continent altogether. die.

Which are of course entirely unrelated facts. Until Cultural Mutation gets involved.


Possibly more accurate?

hamishspence
2012-03-04, 09:50 AM
Frodo's decision to leave seems to have more to do with needing "healing" from the damage (mental and physical) he's suffered during the War.

dehro
2012-03-04, 10:06 AM
quite so..I don't really see any reason to label it as unrequited gay love.
I'd be surprised to find out that tolkien even thought about any of his characters in those terms. bromance, yeah..actuall/actively gay characters?..yeah..I don't see it.
I do believe the author's intentions should count for more than wishful speculation.
one more reason for me to almost universally loathe fanfiction

dehro
2012-03-04, 10:09 AM
I guess Nietzsche sometimes get's the same treatment. While his ideas are kinda dubious, he sometimes get's reduced to "ARYAN UBERMENSCH JA JA!"

meh...I admit I don't know much about Nietzsche (I've also got to google him every time to check the spelling).. the whole "being interned and having half his works edited/worked over by his nazi-loving sister" kind of put a damper on my enthusiasm in his regards.
but then..maybe that's just my ignorance talking.

Nerd-o-rama
2012-03-04, 11:56 AM
I guess Nietzsche sometimes get's the same treatment. While his ideas are kinda dubious, he sometimes get's reduced to "ARYAN UBERMENSCH JA JA!"

Yeah this was somewhat of an intentional warping by certain people who wanted to use his works to support their own political viewpoint.

Which, arguably, is also true of the people who pointed to Socrates and Plato as the grandfather and father of rational democracy, now that I think of it.

Avilan the Grey
2012-03-04, 12:17 PM
Yup, it's definitely there. Not really with Merry/Pippen at all, but between Frodo and Sam, especially from Sam towards Frodo there is a very clear homoerotic text (I hesitate to even call it subtext, it's pretty obvious).

Which of course is a very modern interpretation. I fail to see how anyone that actually takes the text seriously can see it that way, myself.

MCerberus
2012-03-04, 12:45 PM
Possibly more accurate?

I disagree. Frodo lives.

Eldan
2012-03-04, 01:00 PM
Which of course is a very modern interpretation. I fail to see how anyone that actually takes the text seriously can see it that way, myself.

Yeah. It depends a lot on the times. Stephen Fry once mentioned that it was perfectly normal for male friends in England to walk hand in hand or even arm in arm before the Victorians found out that gay people existed :smallwink:

Fiery Diamond
2012-03-04, 01:37 PM
Yeah. It depends a lot on the times. Stephen Fry once mentioned that it was perfectly normal for male friends in England to walk hand in hand or even arm in arm before the Victorians found out that gay people existed :smallwink:

So much this. It really irritates me that people seem to think that having a close, obviously loving, self-sacrificing relationship with someone means that you are in love/have the hots for them. No. It doesn't. And that holds true regardless of whether we're talking about fans claiming characters are gay or claiming that there's incest-subtext in a brother-sister relationship or claiming that a man/boy and a woman/girl must obviously "have feelings" for each other and not be just friends.

Omergideon
2012-03-04, 01:45 PM
So much this. It really irritates me that people seem to think that having a close, obviously loving, self-sacrificing relationship with someone means that you are in love/have the hots for them. No. It doesn't. And that holds true regardless of whether we're talking about fans claiming characters are gay or claiming that there's incest-subtext in a brother-sister relationship or claiming that a man/boy and a woman/girl must obviously "have feelings" for each other and not be just friends.


My dislike for it is really that it seems to devalue the notion of friendships and famillial relationships. C.S Lewis tries to demolish the notion in one of his books (rather bluntly and without tact or enough consideration of others feelings perhaps) when discussing the value of friendships and how they differ from companionships, family affection, romance and charity. It is a good read and really helped me re-evaluate how I looked at friendship.

But yeah, the idea that closeness=romance is bull and it annoys me when people read it into how people act to each other. I mean I have 5 brothers. I am used to the idea of hugging and being affectionate towards guys. I hate how people seem to think I should not do it unless I want people to "think I am gay" or some such. And how people interpret fiction is a reflection of how they think about the world in general. And the sheer volume of people who interpret every single affectionate gesture between 2 guys as proof of secret romance.........it impacts negatively on how I wish to live my life.



This one does get to me.

Dr.Epic
2012-03-04, 01:52 PM
It happens a lot. You have this character or idea that is widely known in general media. It's so well known that random stand-up comics sometimes reference it during an unrelated speil. Too bad that when you look at the actual, original work, it's not there. Or, there's some basic bits of it, but it is fairly normal and not out of place, while everyone makes it out to be some huge, defining feature.


For Example:

James Tiberius Kirk, Sex god.

The Mutation:

McCoy says something emotianal
Kirk sleeps with someone
Spock says something logical
Kirk Sleeps with Someone
Scotty whines about his engines
Kirk Sleeps with someone

Opening credits roll

The Work:

Kirk has slightly fewer romantic interests than the standard TV character for his era. He sleeps with (IIRC) 2 women through the course of the series.

What such mutations do you find most annoying.

But an irrationally high amount of women are just spontaneously attracted to him which pushes suspense of disbelief too much.

thegurullamen
2012-03-04, 01:57 PM
Generally disliked characters from Mass Effect have their characters simplified down to their major flaw, turned up to eleven. More forgivable with the human men (who were blandly portrayed), but the women seem to draw the most ire.

Ashley: Ashley's treated as an unreasonable racist when she objects to aliens (some of whom humanity was once at war with) being aboard humanity's most advanced ship, some of whom are investigating components which are classified top secret.

Miranda: Told all of her life that, due to her genetic enhancements at her perfectionist father's request, that she's objectively better than most everyone around her, she's taken charge of Cerberus' mission aboard the Normandy 2 while deferring to Shepard. When she's presented all of the terrorist acts carried out by Cerberus in the first game, she presents a decent counter-argument that, even if false, makes enough sense (both in a general sense and to her personally) and that, coupled with Cerberus being the only organization dealing with the Reaper threat, removes the moral questionability of her allegiance, at least for the duration of the game. Even her vocal defenses of Cerberus tend to stand up to criticism (except when she eggs on Jack, whose presence on the ship is almost a personal insult and draws a lot of unnecessary insults. But even that can be attributed to even Miranda being human.) In spite of all of this, the fans tend to see her as the 'Cerberus cheerleader who tries to overstep her bounds'.

Both are well rounded characters--just irks me when the fans treat them as little more than the sum of their flaws.

Traab
2012-03-04, 04:07 PM
He does. Frodo in fact lists a whole bunch of kids Sam's going to have:

"But you are my heir: all that I had and might have I leave to you. And also you have Rose, and Elanor, and Frodo-lad will come, and Rosie-lass, and Merry, and Goldilocks, and Pippin, and perhaps more that I cannot see."

He had been wounded, badly. And not just physically, but his very soul was scarred. Everything from the stab he took in weathertop, to getting his finger bitten off, to the soul grinding corruption of the ring he carried for far too long. Him leaving didnt even hint at an unrequited love for his personal hedge trimmer, it was him leaving for (what I gathered at least) was the elven equivalent of heaven. It may have also had a lot to do with a bad case of, "How Ya Gonna Keep 'Em Down on the Farm After They've Seen Paree?" In other words, Frodo was changed so much by everything that happened to him, that he just couldnt bring himself to fit back in at the shire. Same reason why bilbo never returned. The shire just wasnt home anymore.

Honestly, ranking it by most to least, I would place sam as the most homosexual in his words and actions, then merry and pippin, then frodo. But only sam was even really possible in my mind. His devotion to frodo was STRANGE. Why the hell was he so devoted to frodo? The man was a gardener who liked listening to the stories bilbo would share. Then all of a sudden at the big split where frodo takes off on his own for mordor, sam is suddenly this joined at the hip loyal partner to frodo who will follow him wherever he goes and do whatever it takes to protect him. Where the hell did that come from?

Pippin and merry had a prior connection, a best friends and near brothers relationship between them that started before the stories did, the closest thing to 'gay" about them was how attached to each other they were. But that is just nonsense, it was more like, "this is the first time we have been separated, this is freaking scary!" Frodo? Meh, he just struck me as more obsessed with the mission than with any personal relationships. There really wasnt much potential for "woah, that was gay" from him until the end with that whole death speech as the mountain is exploding around him. And even then, I accepted it as a best friend/near family type of thing.

But anyways, while I dont doubt that sam loves frodo, I also dont doubt that it isnt in a romantic way. The problem for me is the source of it.

hamishspence
2012-03-04, 04:21 PM
He had been wounded, badly. And not just physically, but his very soul was scarred. Everything from the stab he took in weathertop, to getting his finger bitten off, to the soul grinding corruption of the ring he carried for far too long. Him leaving didnt even hint at an unrequited love for his personal hedge trimmer, it was him leaving for (what I gathered at least) was the elven equivalent of heaven.

I said that as well:

Frodo's decision to leave seems to have more to do with needing "healing" from the damage (mental and physical) he's suffered during the War.

I think it's explained that it was Arwen who interceded to ensure that he got "a place on the boat" though in his Letters Tolkien explained it wasn't quite as simple as that.

Gnoman
2012-03-04, 04:24 PM
It's an idealized master-servant relationship. The Gamgees served the Baggins family for at least three generations (Sam's father recalls his father being the gardener when Bilbo returned from his adventure.) It is a traditional element in stories for such a relationship to result in strong loyalties. The fact that the Bagginses had long been small families, especially for Hobbits, was undoubtedly a factor in strengthening such bonds.

hamishspence
2012-03-04, 04:28 PM
Why the hell was he so devoted to frodo? The man was a gardener who liked listening to the stories bilbo would share. Then all of a sudden at the big split where frodo takes off on his own for mordor, sam is suddenly this joined at the hip loyal partner to frodo who will follow him wherever he goes and do whatever it takes to protect him. Where the hell did that come from?

There's hints at it fairly early on. The line "It is hardly possible to separate you from him, even when he is summoned to a secret council and you are not." is in both the book and the film.

dehro
2012-03-04, 04:36 PM
I don't see this loyalty as being all that strange..it has tons of precedent in literature..
Sancho to Don Quixote to name but one of them. some of these pairings made sense in a military tradition way..some had to do with family links, others with personal loyalty acquired over deeds and such, some had just to do with the servants of a house being loyal to it's master, which is the case between Sam and Frodo, irrespective of the capacity in which Sam served Frodo.
no, this really isn't strange..I've actually experienced as much directly, with some of the people who worked on the estate I lived on. the gameskeeper was fiercely loyal to the house, the property and ultimately the master of the house, whom he called "padrone" a mix between owner and master...because he knew no better having lived his entire existence there...in the same social structure.. and this is only 20 years ago.
it is something that may have become less customary as the times move forward, but let's not forget that Tolkien is very much a man from another time, and he looks back even further in time.
Sam is the archetype for loyal servant, who starts out as a lowly gardener, becomes personal servant and bodyguard, friend, comrade in arms and saviour.. if anything he's more of a hero than Frodo, because he starts from a much humbler condition. nothing to do with latent gay affections.

Traab
2012-03-04, 04:44 PM
There's hints at it fairly early on. The line "It is hardly possible to separate you from him, even when he is summoned to a secret council and you are not." is in both the book and the film.

Perhaps, but I always looked at that as the insatiable curiosity of the hobbits. They wanted to know what the hell was going on. They all got dragged into this quest, not really even volunteering for it. Sam got shanghaied by gandalf, (though he didnt exactly object much) merry and pippin got sucked in because of the nazgul and the problems they ran into that kept them from just going back home on their own. I blamed it on wanting to learn more of what the hell they got themselves into.

hamishspence
2012-03-04, 04:56 PM
That's more a movie thing- in the book, Merry & Pippin figured out that Something Was Up, got Sam to spy on Frodo (though that ended after Sam was caught listening at the window by Gandalf) and eventually explain (long before they even reach Bree) that they are aware of the Ring, and that Frodo needs help.

The chapter "A Conspiracy Unmasked" shortly after they visit Farmer Maggot, goes into it in detail.

DomaDoma
2012-03-04, 05:00 PM
Note: They don't reach Bree until chapter nine. This is why Tom Bombadil is a bone of contention.

Traab
2012-03-04, 05:35 PM
Note: They don't reach Bree until chapter nine. This is why Tom Bombadil is a bone of contention.

Well yeah, a LOT of stuff got cut out of the escape from the shire. Like making all those false arrangements to throw the nazgul off the trail by pretending that frodo was moving to a new home somewhere else. I think it was fatty bolger the nazgul questioned after busting door the door to "frodos" new house. Instead we get them marching out of the shire as if it was done on the spur of the moment, bumping into merry and pippin who are too scared to head back home after they all escape from the nazgul. Then bang, they are in bree. Like it was a 6 hour hike or something.

hamishspence
2012-03-04, 05:37 PM
They also questioned Farmer Maggot- unsuccessfully- before Frodo & Company arrive at Maggot's place.

The fact that the Nazgul leaves right after Maggot threatens to call up his dogs, is a little odd.

Secret Emails of the Nine (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7913861&postcount=179) spoofs it pretty well.

factotum
2012-03-04, 05:41 PM
Yeah. It depends a lot on the times. Stephen Fry once mentioned that it was perfectly normal for male friends in England to walk hand in hand or even arm in arm before the Victorians found out that gay people existed :smallwink:

You don't even have to go back as far as that--Morecambe and Wise, an extremely popular comedy duo in the UK in the 1970s and early 80s, had sections of their show which showed the pair of them in the same bed, and yet I don't remember any sort of homosexual implications to that.

Traab
2012-03-04, 05:55 PM
They also questioned Farmer Maggot- unsuccessfully- before Frodo & Company arrive at Maggot's place.

The fact that the Nazgul leaves right after Maggot threatens to call up his dogs, is a little odd.

Secret Emails of the Nine (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7913861&postcount=179) spoofs it pretty well.

Especially considering that iirc, his dogs were busy cowering in terror. Meh, it may have been that the nazgul were under orders to not draw attention through wholesale slaughter. Or they had a way of telling that maggot really didnt know where baggins was.

comicshorse
2012-03-04, 07:05 PM
You don't even have to go back as far as that--Morecambe and Wise, an extremely popular comedy duo in the UK in the 1970s and early 80s, had sections of their show which showed the pair of them in the same bed, and yet I don't remember any sort of homosexual implications to that.

But I've seen a documentary where an associate of theirs said they were initially reluctant to do that in case it was seen in exactly that fashion. It was only when it was pointed out that Laurel and Hardy often shared a bed in sketches that they agreed.

Winter_Wolf
2012-03-04, 07:18 PM
"There is latent/blatant homo-eroticism in everything!" There was a (female) professor who really just should have tattooed this on her forehead so that the rest of us could be spared her opening her mouth.

Her take on Platoon was that it wasn't a movie about the Vietnam War, brotherhood, and in the end we're all just folk at all. No, that was just a convenient backdrop for symbolic interracial homosexual relations. She would have had (and probably did, but thankfully I was long since graduated) a field day with all the "homo-erotic behaviors" in LotR.

But I fall into the camp of, if you look hard enough for something, you're sure to find it whether it's there or not.

Speaking of LotR, why is it that Frodo gets so much credit for being the hero of the film? I mean I must have been watching a different film from the majority of people, because in the versions I saw, he was a whining little bitch, and Sam (and Merry and Pippin) were in fact a lot more heroic over the long haul. Three more or less ordinary folk who, when it came to the line, stepped up. And one dreamer who just sort of starting falling to pieces.

DomaDoma
2012-03-04, 07:25 PM
Main character signals. (That, and he was a lot more heroic in the first two books.)

Marnath
2012-03-04, 07:40 PM
Generally disliked characters from Mass Effect have their characters simplified down to their major flaw, turned up to eleven. More forgivable with the human men (who were blandly portrayed), but the women seem to draw the most ire.

Ashley: Ashley's treated as an unreasonable racist when she objects to aliens (some of whom humanity was once at war with) being aboard humanity's most advanced ship, some of whom are investigating components which are classified top secret.


Spoilered for length.
The problem with that assertion is that she really is an unreasonable xenophobe(to start with, anyway.) When she comes to you with her objections what she specifically says is "I'm concerned about the aliens. Vakarian and Wrex. With all due respect Commander, should they have full access to the ship?"
That's her prejudice showing through. Letting Garrus see the ship is not a problem because it was co-designed by the turians. They already know what Normandy can do. Wrex is not a problem from the standpoint of state secrets because come on, when have you ever heard of a krogan that had both the inclination and technical know-how to actually steal the secrets of the Normandy? If he did, what would it help? There aren't any krogan shipyards to produce a copy. He is a security risk for the crew, and that would be a valid issue if she had bothered to mention it.
The biggest thing though is that she doesn't mention Tali at all in that little tirade. You know, the ship-obsessed genius engineer from a refugee fleet? Of all the people on board she's the one person who could both reverse engineer the tantalus drive core by looking at it and also have the perfect motivation to steal that knowledge. While Ashley is busy being paranoid about the other two aliens on board, where's Tali? In engineering, looking directly at the super secret engines.
If Ashley actually cared about ship security she'd be on your case to have Ms. Zorah banned from the engineering deck.

Now, my pick for most annoying character mutation? Seven of Nine. She starts out as this badass former borg but then later on she almost turns into some sort of damsel in distress. I mean, she gets abducted without much fight how many times?

An Enemy Spy
2012-03-04, 07:42 PM
The line that bothered me was "I heard one with up with nothing but his servant and fought the Dark Lord himself?"
What is Sam, just a piece of Frodo's equipment? I've always considered Sam to be the hero of LotR. I think Frodo is the only person who gave him any credit at all.
I like their relationship in the movies better, where they're more friends than master/servant.

Traab
2012-03-04, 08:45 PM
"There is latent/blatant homo-eroticism in everything!" There was a (female) professor who really just should have tattooed this on her forehead so that the rest of us could be spared her opening her mouth.

Her take on Platoon was that it wasn't a movie about the Vietnam War, brotherhood, and in the end we're all just folk at all. No, that was just a convenient backdrop for symbolic interracial homosexual relations. She would have had (and probably did, but thankfully I was long since graduated) a field day with all the "homo-erotic behaviors" in LotR.

But I fall into the camp of, if you look hard enough for something, you're sure to find it whether it's there or not.

Speaking of LotR, why is it that Frodo gets so much credit for being the hero of the film? I mean I must have been watching a different film from the majority of people, because in the versions I saw, he was a whining little bitch, and Sam (and Merry and Pippin) were in fact a lot more heroic over the long haul. Three more or less ordinary folk who, when it came to the line, stepped up. And one dreamer who just sort of starting falling to pieces.

He gets the credits because technically he is the main protagonist. The story depends entirely on weather he can succeed in destroying the ring. Yeah there was a lot of big damn hero moments from most of the fellowship, (except for gimli, poor dwarven bastard was pure comedy relief in the movie) but the focus had to rest on frodo because it doesnt matter how many times aragorn saves minas tirith, if frodo doesnt destroy the ring, then eventually gondor will die. Legolas can kill a thousand oliphaunts, and gimli can make 50 billion orcs a head shorter, if frodo doesnt destroy the ring, more will be bred, and they will be dragged down. Frodo was in the exact same position as sam merry and pippin, except he also had the biggest freaking burden in existence wrapped around his neck.

Basically, while there were a lot of heroes, frodo is THE hero because it was up to him to destroy the ring, and it was destroyed. The fact that technically he failed, and the world was saved because gollum thought dancing a jig at the edge of a cliff was a good idea is glossed over.

Gnoman
2012-03-04, 08:52 PM
Even then, his herioism in showing Gollum mercy was decisive,.

MLai
2012-03-04, 09:06 PM
But yeah, the idea that closeness=romance is bull and it annoys me when people read it into how people act to each other. I mean I have 5 brothers. I am used to the idea of hugging and being affectionate towards guys. I hate how people seem to think I should not do it unless I want people to "think I am gay" or some such. And how people interpret fiction is a reflection of how they think about the world in general. And the sheer volume of people who interpret every single affectionate gesture between 2 guys as proof of secret romance.........it impacts negatively on how I wish to live my life.
I don't understand the idea of men holding hands or arm-in-arm while walking down the street. (This is what you meant in your previous paragraph, yes? It not, then ignore below.)

Hugging each other in excitement when team scores goal, sure. Doing the Italian kiss-thing when greeting each other, sure. Singing loudly arm-in-arm, great. Hell, even sleeping in a queen bed together, fine.

But why would you be holding hands with another man? That is specifically a gesture of physical intimacy, because you like the feel of the other's hand. Or it's a gesture of relationship dominance-submission, because you're leading and the other person can't be trusted to follow like an able adult. It's like saying men should be able to ballroom-dance with each other without getting looks.

Maybe it's a cultural difference. What nationality are you speaking from?


"There is latent/blatant homo-eroticism in everything!" There was a (female) professor who really just should have tattooed this on her forehead so that the rest of us could be spared her opening her mouth.
LOL what is it with female English teachers? I had one like that, too. Now that I'm all grown up, I think I need to date them. ;D


why is it that Frodo gets so much credit for being the hero of the film? I mean I must have been watching a different film from the majority of people, because in the versions I saw, he was a whining little bitch, and Sam (and Merry and Pippin) were in fact a lot more heroic over the long haul. Three more or less ordinary folk who, when it came to the line, stepped up. And one dreamer who just sort of starting falling to pieces.
The film doesn't remind us of it enough (thru blatant SFX), but the Ring is constantly exerting an influence on Frodo. He's not "falling to pieces" because of personal weakness.


Even then, his herioism in showing Gollum mercy was decisive,
It's only "decisive" because of good logic and risk-taking, not mercy and goodness. It's logical to want a guide in hostile territory you know nothing about. The fact that the guide is traitorous adds risk, but acceptable risk as long as precautions are taken.

However, that passage at the end that showing Gollum mercy allowed him to facilitate the final destruction of the Ring at Mt.Doom... that's ridiculous. So allowing someone who wants to murder you and rob the quest item, is a good idea because it ultimately worked out due to plot armor?

McStabbington
2012-03-04, 09:40 PM
I think the point was that it wasn't particularly prudent. It was, however, the decent and moral thing to do. Gollum is a surprisingly textured character for such a black-and-white book at LotR, in that he's not evil so much as weak. He has many foibles and no sense of moral rectitude to combat it, which means that he's always pushed around by people stronger than he is. The elves, the orcs, Sauron and most of all the Ring all dominate him because he just doesn't have the strength of arms or the strength of character to combat them.

Frodo, while he doesn't have the strength to resist the lure of the Ring at the very apex of its strength (and really, who does) has the strength of purpose not to kill unless at need, and not to kill those for whom he feels deserve pity. That rightness of purpose allowed him to resist the Ring until the very end. It also set Gollum up to accomplish by the Ring's own tools what Frodo could not accomplish on his own. Call it plot armor if you wish, but I thought that it was an incredibly powerful story about how honor and advantage are often far more compatible than prudence might suggest.

Traab
2012-03-04, 10:14 PM
I honestly wonder how the story would have changed if faramir had never run across frodo and crew. Smeagol was surfacing more and more, the good side of gollum was growing stronger, then he received what he saw was a betrayal by frodo when he lured gollum into a trap so faramirs men could capture him and decide what to do. It basically shattered the fragile recovery smeagol was going through.

An Enemy Spy
2012-03-04, 10:14 PM
I don't understand the idea of men holding hands or arm-in-arm while walking down the street. (This is what you meant in your previous paragraph, yes? It not, then ignore below.)

Hugging each other in excitement when team scores goal, sure. Doing the Italian kiss-thing when greeting each other, sure. Singing loudly arm-in-arm, great. Hell, even sleeping in a queen bed together, fine.

But why would you be holding hands with another man? That is specifically a gesture of physical intimacy, because you like the feel of the other's hand. Or it's a gesture of relationship dominance-submission, because you're leading and the other person can't be trusted to follow like an able adult. It's like saying men should be able to ballroom-dance with each other without getting looks.

Because body language isn't universal across all cultures? There's plenty of cultures today where men hold hands as a sign of friendship.

Ninjadeadbeard
2012-03-04, 10:44 PM
Because body language isn't universal across all cultures? There's plenty of cultures today where men hold hands as a sign of friendship.

Case in point, while my father went back to his ancestral home in France (read: Barn with a coffee maker) he said that it was perfectly normal for two men who had been best friends for decades to walk down the street arm in arm, hand in hand. Americans, he says, have a larger personal space/intimacy gap than some other cultures.

factotum
2012-03-05, 02:18 AM
Speaking of LotR, why is it that Frodo gets so much credit for being the hero of the film? I mean I must have been watching a different film from the majority of people, because in the versions I saw, he was a whining little bitch, and Sam (and Merry and Pippin) were in fact a lot more heroic over the long haul.

The thing the films did really, really badly was to show the creeping influence of the Ring--this was much more clear in the books. Frodo's heroism did not lie in physical acts like fighting, it lay in being able to resist the Ring for so long; in fact, he only lost it right at the end, when he was close to the Dark Lord's seat of power and the Ring was at its most malevolent.

Avilan the Grey
2012-03-05, 02:36 AM
His devotion to frodo was STRANGE. Why the hell was he so devoted to frodo? The man was a gardener who liked listening to the stories bilbo would share. Then all of a sudden at the big split where frodo takes off on his own for mordor, sam is suddenly this joined at the hip loyal partner to frodo who will follow him wherever he goes and do whatever it takes to protect him. Where the hell did that come from?

It is not strange if you consider what Tolkien based their relationship on: The relationship between Military Officer and his "manservant" (I don't remember the correct english term at the moment). Also, this is how all iconic Master / Butler relationships are.

In fact, this idea of a gay relationship between these two characters is one of the things that irritates me the most; it is right up there with people (there is a lot of those) who insists that Batman is a pedophile because of Robin.

Juggling Goth
2012-03-05, 02:58 AM
Regarding the "but they're just good friends!" thing, it's partly because if they were opposite-sex, a relationship would almost certainly be shoehorned in, however inappropriate. Given the "screentime together=TWOO WUV" formula exists in many, many stories, gay/bi viewers figure, well, why can't we have some of that action? I mean, it's a stupid formula. But if it's gonna be used again and again and again, well, you need to bring enough for the whole class. Before you think "oh I can't believe they read THAT in there", stop and ask yourself whether, if it were a guy and a girl, there wouldn't've been hints of romance.

Plus there's a cultural history (and present, in places where it's more dangerous to be gay/bi) of not getting straight (no pun intended) answers, and looking for symbols or nudge-nudge-wink-wink clues. Before the internet and more enlightened legislation, finding your people was incredibly difficult, and unusually close friendships was one of the things that would tip you off. That kind of thing leaves a cultural shadow.

/social history lesson from the social history nerd who did her dissertation on homoeroticism in interwar novels. You all would have hated the presentation I did on masculinity in pop culture 1850-1950 where I said Sherlock & Watson and Raffles & Bunny were definitely getting it on.

Omergideon
2012-03-05, 03:03 AM
I don't understand the idea of men holding hands or arm-in-arm while walking down the street. (This is what you meant in your previous paragraph, yes? It not, then ignore below.)

Hugging each other in excitement when team scores goal, sure. Doing the Italian kiss-thing when greeting each other, sure. Singing loudly arm-in-arm, great. Hell, even sleeping in a queen bed together, fine.

But why would you be holding hands with another man? That is specifically a gesture of physical intimacy, because you like the feel of the other's hand. Or it's a gesture of relationship dominance-submission, because you're leading and the other person can't be trusted to follow like an able adult. It's like saying men should be able to ballroom-dance with each other without getting looks.

As someone else said body language varies. And as I grew up I got used to being affectionate with guys moreso than girls. So I just got used to it. The gestures of dominance/submission thing is very relationship dependent, as you know. I mean with my girlfirend we hold hands because of intimacy and closeness and all that jazz, and our romantic feelings for each other. I would never consider doing that with another girl or female. But I see no issue with going arm in arm or hand in hand with another guy if the situation warranted. Just like if I am tired I would happily lay my head on another's shoulders. And is I wanted to dance with another man I do not have an issue with it. Dancing is, to me, mostly about having fun and so I am happy with a full range of partners for that activity.

Though I mean more generalised displays of affection and had no specific ones in mind I will note that I just do not see the problem with most of them. OK I am not going to snog a guy a know, but I do not honestly see the trouble with giving them a kiss on the forehead. Or an affectionate hug. I used to stroke my younger brother's neck in long church meetings and neither of us thought it odd.

Closeness need not be romantic I suppose with my physical gestures, and since the assumption that it is limits and forces me to curtail my natural expression in word and deed it irks me. I would like to be able to say "I love you man" without having to add "like a brother" to avoid people freaking out. Especially since friendship and brotherly relationships are quite different. This is why I like how the Greeks had 4 fully valid terms for love that were all considered meaningful but different, but all love.

And this is from an English gentlemen, a man of Kent.


And in many letters Tolkien referred to Sam as the true hero of the LoTR saga. I think the idea that Frodo is also a hero is a true one though as his burden is both vast, powerful and omnipresent on him throughout his ordeal. That he fails is no sorrow as the book admits that no individual would have succeeded. But Frodo got further than anyone else in the world could have. Greats like Gandalf and Galdriel outright stated that they could not have handled the burden Frodo did.

Though considering that Frodo snapped at mount doom the far less stable Gollum would also have done so at that point regardless of what else happened.

dehro
2012-03-05, 03:09 AM
It is not strange if you consider what Tolkien based their relationship on: The relationship between Military Officer and his "manservant" (I don't remember the correct english term at the moment).
that would be a batman
yeah..I know
funny historical reference: Peter Ustinov was David Niven's batman during the war

Xondoure
2012-03-05, 03:14 AM
Playing devil's advocate here, there are only too things we care about and everything is about both of them: sex and death. Its the way our brains work and any story ultimately boils down to these two things in some combination. What is more our brains are constantly sizing up everyone and everything we encounter as a possible sexual partner. Yes, everything, along with its potential threat (tadah! sex and death again.) When you add sexual compatibility this becomes harder to ignore but it is always there.

Also this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_lh5fR4DMA) is relevant. Even though the point is really why men and women can't just be friends, not be friends period.

Winter_Wolf
2012-03-05, 06:10 AM
Playing devil's advocate here, there are only too things we care about and everything is about both of them: sex and death. Its the way our brains work and any story ultimately boils down to these two things in some combination. What is more our brains are constantly sizing up everyone and everything we encounter as a possible sexual partner. Yes, everything, along with its potential threat (tadah! sex and death again.) When you add sexual compatibility this becomes harder to ignore but it is always there.

It always fascinates me the fixation so many people have on sex. Maybe I should say combination of obsession and repression. Or maybe that's just among the Americans I know. Being that I was born and raised in the States, it's a pretty big part of my experience.

I have a healthy enjoyment of sex, but sometimes I just want to watch a film without having some half-assed romance shoehorned in there. Thor springs instantly to mind.

Maybe my problem with Frodo is that I've never really enjoyed a film/series of films and hated the main protagonist so much. I get that the One Ring was messing with his head and he was under a lot of stress, but even knowing how the trilogy would play out, I still kind of wanted Frodo to die at Mt. Doom.

Just tangentially, I thought the relationship between Sam and Frodo was a lot more normal than the one between Frodo and Bilbo. Can't really say why, unless it's because somewhere in the back of my mind the actor playing Bilbo was just so intensely disturbing in From Hell.

H Birchgrove
2012-03-05, 08:53 AM
Regarding the "but they're just good friends!" thing, it's partly because if they were opposite-sex, a relationship would almost certainly be shoehorned in, however inappropriate. Given the "screentime together=TWOO WUV" formula exists in many, many stories, gay/bi viewers figure, well, why can't we have some of that action? I mean, it's a stupid formula. But if it's gonna be used again and again and again, well, you need to bring enough for the whole class. Before you think "oh I can't believe they read THAT in there", stop and ask yourself whether, if it were a guy and a girl, there wouldn't've been hints of romance.

Plus there's a cultural history (and present, in places where it's more dangerous to be gay/bi) of not getting straight (no pun intended) answers, and looking for symbols or nudge-nudge-wink-wink clues. Before the internet and more enlightened legislation, finding your people was incredibly difficult, and unusually close friendships was one of the things that would tip you off. That kind of thing leaves a cultural shadow.

/social history lesson from the social history nerd who did her dissertation on homoeroticism in interwar novels. You all would have hated the presentation I did on masculinity in pop culture 1850-1950 where I said Sherlock & Watson and Raffles & Bunny were definitely getting it on.

I believe I can think of at least a few examples of fiction in which male and female heroes work together without having romance occurring or even hinted (given some time). Doc and Pat Savage, and Richard Henry Benson/The Avenger and Nellie Gray, comes to mind right now.

What surprises me is that people aren't claiming several characters (for example Sherlock Holmes, Doc Savage, Tintin, etc) to be asexual; that would make more sense than either homo- or heterosexuality for those characters.

Avilan the Grey
2012-03-05, 09:06 AM
What surprises me is that people aren't claiming several characters (for example Sherlock Holmes, Doc Savage, Tintin, etc) to be asexual; that would make more sense than either homo- or heterosexuality for those characters.

Because asexuality is boring, I guess, plus you cannot get a rouse (pun intended) out of people by saying that, while arguing that Watson and Holmes were gay lovers will, at best, give you your 15 minutes of fame and at worst make you noticed by others with the same ideas.

(This is one of the funnier bits on The Thin Blue Line when the young female officer gets a rise (again, pun intended :smallamused:) out of Fowler by constantly argue this, while at the same time totally miss that the handsome firefighter she is so in love with is actually gay).

Eldariel
2012-03-05, 09:22 AM
Playing devil's advocate here, there are only too things we care about and everything is about both of them: sex and death. Its the way our brains work and any story ultimately boils down to these two things in some combination. What is more our brains are constantly sizing up everyone and everything we encounter as a possible sexual partner. Yes, everything, along with its potential threat (tadah! sex and death again.) When you add sexual compatibility this becomes harder to ignore but it is always there.

Isn't that basically just Psychoanalysis in a nutshell? 'cause, while one branch of Psychology, it's hardly the only one. I fail to see why we'd watch stories through these particular lenses, unless that is actually the whole truth about our brain.

Traab
2012-03-05, 09:29 AM
It is not strange if you consider what Tolkien based their relationship on: The relationship between Military Officer and his "manservant" (I don't remember the correct english term at the moment). Also, this is how all iconic Master / Butler relationships are.

In fact, this idea of a gay relationship between these two characters is one of the things that irritates me the most; it is right up there with people (there is a lot of those) who insists that Batman is a pedophile because of Robin.

I dont think they had a gay relationship, I just was stating that I could see why people could claim sam was gay. I will admit that I missed the fact that sam was apparently part of a multigenerational servant/master thing with the baggins family, so that does answer my main question. Up till now I figured he was just some hobbit hired to keep the lawn looking neat. That he was fond of bilbo because he took the time to tell him interesting stories, and thats about it.

The batman/robin thing is just a bad joke. I dont think anyone seriously thinks that, its just an easy target because of just how silly the situation can look when taken out of context. Grown man wearing spandex taking a young orphan boy, who he has also dressed in spandex, all around the back alleys and isolated areas of a city at night. Seems kinda fishy.

H Birchgrove
2012-03-05, 10:29 AM
The batman/robin thing is just a bad joke. I dont think anyone seriously thinks that, its just an easy target because of just how silly the situation can look when taken out of context. Grown man wearing spandex taking a young orphan boy, who he has also dressed in spandex, all around the back alleys and isolated areas of a city at night. Seems kinda fishy.

He (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredric_Wertham) and he (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils_Bejerot#Career_highlights) certainly didn't joke. :smallsigh:

This nonsense even has its own Wikipedia entry. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_Batman_franchise)

Tengu_temp
2012-03-05, 12:34 PM
Given the "screentime together=TWOO WUV" formula exists in many, many stories, gay/bi viewers figure, well, why can't we have some of that action?

You sure it's gay/bi audience who started and propagated this phenomenon? The archetype of a shipping-obsessed fangirl who sees OBVIOUS HOMOLUST between two male characters who are supposed to just be friends/rivals/brothers might just be an archetype, but spend just a few minutes in some parts of the internet to see that it's alive and well. Replace fangirl with fanboy and male characters with female ones for an archetype that's almost as common.

Solution to the problem: more official homosexual couples in fiction. It annoys me that media why away from their portrayal, as if such love was somehow lesser than straight one.

Xondoure
2012-03-05, 01:51 PM
Isn't that basically just Psychoanalysis in a nutshell? 'cause, while one branch of Psychology, it's hardly the only one. I fail to see why we'd watch stories through these particular lenses, unless that is actually the whole truth about our brain.

Well it isn't all that is going on, but... Think of it like binary code. Two things replicated in different patterns to produce different results. Or simply the fact that people see it as there means that it is there, and that others don't means that it doesn't apply as directly to them and other options resonate more clearly.

Just my opinion, but I've yet to see it be disproven and I'm not sure how one would go about doing that.

Juggling Goth
2012-03-05, 02:01 PM
You sure it's gay/bi audience who started and propagated this phenomenon? The archetype of a shipping-obsessed fangirl who sees OBVIOUS HOMOLUST between two male characters who are supposed to just be friends/rivals/brothers might just be an archetype, but spend just a few minutes in some parts of the internet to see that it's alive and well. Replace fangirl with fanboy and male characters with female ones for an archetype that's almost as common.

Solution to the problem: more official homosexual couples in fiction. It annoys me that media why away from their portrayal, as if such love was somehow lesser than straight one.

Well, I can't really speak for the straight fangirls, because I'm not one. I'd be a femmeslasher if female characters weren't generally so appallingly badly written and if more stuff passed the Bechdel test, but as it is, I'm stuck with the guys.

But yes, I'm aware of the phenomenon. There's a big chunk of exoticism and othering going on. I can only explain why LGBT audience members do it: even when you're living in a time/place that's relatively friendly, the realisation/coming-out process is like a microcosm of LGBT history, and there's often a period of "is he like me? Is she like me? Please tell me I'm not the only one..." Thus, Xena and Gabrielle are lesbian icons.

*Sigh* Well, I'd love more LGBT couples, yeah. Let me know when reflecting the world in all its awesome diversity won't frighten the horses, or the advertisers...

Telonius
2012-03-05, 02:57 PM
Back to Frodo and Sam for a moment ...

I'd link it if I could remember where it was I read it, but basically Lord of the Rings has two separate quests going on at the same time. The first one, the classic "high-fantasy" slay-the-dragon sort of quest, involves everybody but Sam and Frodo. The Dark Lord's armies have to be defeated on the field, or even if Frodo gets there in time he'll be saving an empty world. The second quest is the internal one, Frodo's struggle against the evil influence of the Ring, assisted only by Sam and the gifts he's received from the Elves.

In most older myths and hero stories, the external quest is reserved for men, the internal quest for women. That Frodo takes the typically more "feminine" of the quests is probably the basis for a lot of the "homoerotic" ideas. (Eowyn also inverts the usual gender of that role, but that's a twenty-page rant in itself). In most older myths, the external quest is the one that gets the public praise. Even people who win internal quests almost never get the public adulation they deserve, and Frodo actually failed in his. After the fact, in the book it's actually pretty clear that Frodo doesn't get any credit (at least in Hobbiton) for being a hero. Frodo's role in the Scouring of the Shire was that of conscience, not hero. Sam's the one who becomes mayor, and Merry and Pippin go on to be prominent Hobbits in their own right.

(As an aside, I think it's a very salient point that Tolkien himself served as an officer in World War I during the Battle of the Somme, one of the bloodiest military offensives in history. He caught trench fever and went back home to recover. Both in combat and in the hospitals, he would have seen a large number of young men suffering from "shell shock" (what we'd call Combat Stress Reaction or PTSD today) and needing to win their own personal internal quest).

Traab
2012-03-05, 03:18 PM
He (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredric_Wertham) and he (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils_Bejerot#Career_highlights) certainly didn't joke. :smallsigh:

This nonsense even has its own Wikipedia entry. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_Batman_franchise)

Ill be honest with you. That type of psychologist is one who grabs ahold of a theory and rides it till its raw and bleeding. (no sexual overtones there you filthy minded perverts) I put this guy on similar levels to him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_%28attorney%29). Basically, they come up with something to blame for some unpleasant behavior, whether its violence, or sexuality, or ocd, and they will bend and twist every "fact" they can come up with to make it fit their view. In other words, they come to a conclusion, THEN they look for facts that fit their conclusion. If it doesnt fit, like a square peg in a round hole, the fellow will just grab a sledgehammer until he can make it fit.

Gnoman
2012-03-05, 05:50 PM
The thing the films did really, really badly was to show the creeping influence of the Ring--this was much more clear in the books. Frodo's heroism did not lie in physical acts like fighting, it lay in being able to resist the Ring for so long; in fact, he only lost it right at the end, when he was close to the Dark Lord's seat of power and the Ring was at its most malevolent.

Thing is, Frodo showed a lot more physical bravery in the books. Compare Weathertop and tne Tomb of Balin.

Weathertop

Book:
Frodo, wearing the ring, confronts the Witch-King of Agmar directly, strikes with his sword and cries the name of Elbereth. The thrust causes the MOrgul-blade to miss it's mark, and the name drives back the Witch-King long enough for Aragorn to arrive.

Film:

Frodo cowers before the Witch-King, who stabs him in the shoulder deliberately before being dirven off by Aragorn.

Tomb of Balin

Book:

Frodo stabs the troll in the foot, which allows Boromir to close the door. He is later hit iwth th etrust of a spear from an Orc that he is trying to fight,

Movie:
Frodow cowers in the back while everyone else fights, and is hit by a stray spear thrown by the troll.

Eldariel
2012-03-05, 06:47 PM
Well it isn't all that is going on, but... Think of it like binary code. Two things replicated in different patterns to produce different results. Or simply the fact that people see it as there means that it is there, and that others don't means that it doesn't apply as directly to them and other options resonate more clearly.

Just my opinion, but I've yet to see it be disproven and I'm not sure how one would go about doing that.

Well, it's just as hard as to prove it until we have some framework on how our brains actually function, how big a role our non-cognitive instincts have on our cognitive activity, and what actually are the reasons behind our actions. 'cause while they can be explained largely quite behavioristically, that's far from the only explanation.

I find Maslow's hierarchy of needs a bit more interesting but still missing quite a bit; of course, it's been expanded upon later but I couldn't pinpoint anything truly expansive, and since we still have no way to actually confirm any of that, it kinda does fall under speculation.

Xondoure
2012-03-05, 07:20 PM
Well, it's just as hard as to prove it until we have some framework on how our brains actually function, how big a role our non-cognitive instincts have on our cognitive activity, and what actually are the reasons behind our actions. 'cause while they can be explained largely quite behavioristically, that's far from the only explanation.

I find Maslow's hierarchy of needs a bit more interesting but still missing quite a bit; of course, it's been expanded upon later but I couldn't pinpoint anything truly expansive, and since we still have no way to actually confirm any of that, it kinda does fall under speculation.

Maslow's still boil down to "safety, and self worth." Safety, being "I'm not going to die right now," and self worth being "People care about me." And why would people caring about you be important? Well one because it makes you safe and two because it's the only way you're ever going to be with someone outside of rape, which violates others safety and as empathic beings (because empathy increases our chances of sexual selection) that is usually not a pleasant idea to us (at least in our current culture.)

So yes its speculation, but its also just deconstruction. Eventually even sex and death break down to life. And if you pick apart why we feel what we feel in regards to anything you are going to tear it down to our basic need for survival. It isn't that those things aren't more complicated than that, but that the struggle of living is the essential component behind human action and thought.

TLDR: The complications behind human action don't contradict our fixation on life and death.

The Glyphstone
2012-03-05, 10:27 PM
He (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredric_Wertham) and he (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils_Bejerot#Career_highlights) certainly didn't joke. :smallsigh:

This nonsense even has its own Wikipedia entry. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_Batman_franchise)

This (http://superdickery.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=32&Itemid=50), on the other hand, is a joke. And it still manages more proof than either of those 'experts' compiled.:smallsmile:

MLai
2012-03-06, 12:38 AM
@ McStabbington's LOTR post:
Dude I'm totally quoting you. In my comics. That was a beautifully concise argument against "plot armour."
From what you said, I get the implication that "honor" begets "advantage" because people are drawn to it, and in the end it "works out."


it is right up there with people (there is a lot of those) who insists that Batman is a pedophile because of Robin.
What Batman needed when he was created, was a gorgeous redheaded woman butler named Alfia. That would have quieted the critics.


Maslow's still boil down to "safety, and self worth." Safety, being "I'm not going to die right now," and self worth being "People care about me."
What about the altruistic portion of Maslow's pyramid? Granted, animal behaviorists can explain that one too, using statistics and genetic variance. But the point is altruism does exist, even in animal populations.

Xondoure
2012-03-06, 02:41 AM
@ McStabbington's LOTR post:
Dude I'm totally quoting you. In my comics. That was a beautifully concise argument against "plot armour."
From what you said, I get the implication that "honor" begets "advantage" because people are drawn to it, and in the end it "works out."


What Batman needed when he was created, was a gorgeous redheaded woman butler named Alfia. That would have quieted the critics.


What about the altruistic portion of Maslow's pyramid? Granted, animal behaviorists can explain that one too, using statistics and genetic variance. But the point is altruism does exist, even in animal populations.

Helping others is good because if everyone does it, everyone benefits, increasing everyone's survival chances. It also ties back into people caring for you.

And yes, not every altruistic action has direct ties to your personal safety, that doesn't stop making it about others personal safety. And we're right back to safety being code for not in immediate danger of death.

Avilan the Grey
2012-03-06, 05:37 AM
What Batman needed when he was created, was a gorgeous redheaded woman butler named Alfia. That would have quieted the critics.

Like how Kato in the new Green Hornet comic is a female? :smalltongue:

The bigger problem, I think, is that we in the modern times has been conditioned to see any adult male / young male interaction as creepy, which is sad.

Eldariel
2012-03-06, 05:51 AM
Helping others is good because if everyone does it, everyone benefits, increasing everyone's survival chances. It also ties back into people caring for you.

And yes, not every altruistic action has direct ties to your personal safety, that doesn't stop making it about others personal safety. And we're right back to safety being code for not in immediate danger of death.

And what about self-actualization; creativity, art, etc.? Things you only do for yourself and only for your own amusement. It's nothing you do because you give a **** about other people. It's nothing you do 'cause you're afraid. It's something you do only for yourself.

In general, I find that while you can try to explain everything through survival and reproduction, the explanations are gimmicky at best.

EDIT: Meh, it's just a matter we probably will never see eye-to-eye on. Nothing wrong with believing the way you do and I shouldn't try to convince you otherwise.

hamishspence
2012-03-06, 06:48 AM
And what about self-actualization; creativity, art, etc.? Things you only do for yourself and only for your own amusement. It's nothing you do because you give a **** about other people. It's nothing you do 'cause you're afraid. It's something you do only for yourself.

"It's pleasurable" is probably a major part of it.

Pleasurable things tend to be in one's own self-interest (maybe as a way of encouraging the being to keep committing the action).

As to why we find it pleasureable to "do art" to "examine our own art" to "bask in the admiration of other people for our art"- perhaps its a bit like the decorations of the bowerbird- the males build bowers to attract the females.

Only in this case, it's something both genders do, that has "culturally evolved" a long way from its roots.

Eldariel
2012-03-06, 06:56 AM
"It's pleasurable" is probably a major part of it.

Pleasurable things tend to be in one's own self-interest (maybe as a way of encouraging the being to keep committing the action).

See, that's an explanation that makes sense; "it's pleasurable" applies to most things we do voluntarily. I feel it's rather farfetched to try and tie all sources of pleasure to sexuality or survival though. Far as I'm concerned, sex is one source of pleasure; it definitely seems to me that "pleasure" is the umbrella concept here, not "sex" (or things leading to it).

Xondoure
2012-03-06, 12:32 PM
Art and creativity are both sexually selective traits (and thus have a lot to do with sex and death) under current theories, and indeed make us happy. And being happy is about using the time we have before we die well, or in helping us to connect to the others around us. And its funny that you mention art when so much of it is blatantly about those two things. In fact, I'd challenge you to name a piece of art that doesn't tie back to these things but we're getting off topic.

Back to the original point, it is impossible to write a story that in some way does not tie in to those two themes because whether or not you intend them, we as living beings observe everything through those lenses. Especially people. So it is no real surprise that every character in a work has been paired by people who have read that book whether or not they posted about it on fanfiction.net

Kato
2012-03-06, 01:28 PM
Tia Carrere is very pretty eye candy plus Relic Hunter doesn't take itself too seriously, so I don't mind it too much. :smallbiggrin:

Relic Hunter was sweet... Hm... Tia Carrere.... :smallredface:



Like how Kato in the new Green Hornet comic is a female? :smalltongue:

Wait, what? Should I know this person?



There are just so many cultural mutations that can be annoying... But I tend to think of most of them as quite amusing. If there is something that annoys me it is the trend (mostly of girls) to love bad boys mostly just because they show some small bit of good (and sometimes not even that). Not saying I only like good guys but... seriously, when the person is clearly a **** and often without any motivation, why do people love him/her and claim he is just misunderstood or whatever. I'm sure I could list a dozen people who'd meet that criteria so it really seems to be a BIG thing.

hamishspence
2012-03-06, 01:33 PM
Far as I'm concerned, sex is one source of pleasure; it definitely seems to me that "pleasure" is the umbrella concept here, not "sex" (or things leading to it).

True. "intellectual pleasure" from knowing how "good" your piece of art is (from your view) might be substantially different from "endorphin rush" produced when a thousand people applaud you at once for it.

Traab
2012-03-06, 02:39 PM
Relic Hunter was sweet... Hm... Tia Carrere.... :smallredface:



Wait, what? Should I know this person?



There are just so many cultural mutations that can be annoying... But I tend to think of most of them as quite amusing. If there is something that annoys me it is the trend (mostly of girls) to love bad boys mostly just because they show some small bit of good (and sometimes not even that). Not saying I only like good guys but... seriously, when the person is clearly a **** and often without any motivation, why do people love him/her and claim he is just misunderstood or whatever. I'm sure I could list a dozen people who'd meet that criteria so it really seems to be a BIG thing.

I think mostly its because the pretty bad boys tend to have a backstory they can understand. Something happened in their life and they went evil. Because they can understand the motivation, they can forgive the action, and they can believe the bad guy could turn good in the end. Hell, thats actually a fairly common trope, bad guys with tragic pasts turn good, usually due to the heroes redeeming them somehow, often by a girl in the hero group. Or by a heroic sacrifice. Say the bad guy has had a loyal minion by their side the entire time. the heros are about to finish the bad guy off when loyal minion takes the hit, makes a tearful goodbye speech, and dies in his arms. Boom, the path to redemption is opened.

Agent 451
2012-03-06, 04:22 PM
I think the ones that irk me the most would be "Beam me up, Scotty" and "Luke, I am your father" considering neither was ever actually voiced on film.

Weezer
2012-03-06, 04:31 PM
I think the ones that irk me the most would be "Beam me up, Scotty" and "Luke, I am your father" considering neither was ever actually voiced on film.

I think "Elementary, my dear Watson" is even worse, seeing that it was never in any of the original Doyle stories. Grumble.

Agent 451
2012-03-06, 04:48 PM
Heh, touche!

Kato
2012-03-06, 05:31 PM
I think mostly its because the pretty bad boys tend to have a backstory they can understand. Something happened in their life and they went evil. Because they can understand the motivation, they can forgive the action, and they can believe the bad guy could turn good in the end. Hell, thats actually a fairly common trope, bad guys with tragic pasts turn good, usually due to the heroes redeeming them somehow, often by a girl in the hero group. Or by a heroic sacrifice. Say the bad guy has had a loyal minion by their side the entire time. the heros are about to finish the bad guy off when loyal minion takes the hit, makes a tearful goodbye speech, and dies in his arms. Boom, the path to redemption is opened.

But is that really true for everyone? Like... let's stick to one fandom. In Harry Potter there is a ridiculous group of girls who loved Malfoy from... well, I'd guess starting from the first book but soon enough anyway even though he was a douche from the start. Maybe he got slightly redeemed later but.. apart from being pretty, what has the guy going for him? Or not to stick to the guys, apparently Bellatrix has quite some fans as well, even though as far as I can think she's a racist psychopath with hardly any back story.
Heck, almost all the bad guys from Potter are empty shells... maybe except for Voldemort. And he has no fans because he's not pretty.
But I digress.
I guess I would name a certain platinum haired pretty boy as well but I fear i will spark unwanted discussion on the matter... though that guy does have some back ground at least...
Ah well, whatever. Maybe I'm just jealous because of all the attention they get :smallwink:

Traab
2012-03-06, 07:25 PM
But is that really true for everyone? Like... let's stick to one fandom. In Harry Potter there is a ridiculous group of girls who loved Malfoy from... well, I'd guess starting from the first book but soon enough anyway even though he was a douche from the start. Maybe he got slightly redeemed later but.. apart from being pretty, what has the guy going for him? Or not to stick to the guys, apparently Bellatrix has quite some fans as well, even though as far as I can think she's a racist psychopath with hardly any back story.
Heck, almost all the bad guys from Potter are empty shells... maybe except for Voldemort. And he has no fans because he's not pretty.
But I digress.
I guess I would name a certain platinum haired pretty boy as well but I fear i will spark unwanted discussion on the matter... though that guy does have some back ground at least...
Ah well, whatever. Maybe I'm just jealous because of all the attention they get :smallwink:

As for Draco, he is a victim as much as anyone. Raised from birth steeped in hatred and disdain for all those his father deems unworthy. He was brainwashed for as long as he could understand the spoken word to believe that his blood made him superior, and his name placed him at the top of the elite. All those under him are tools to be used, those lower than that are trash to be disposed of, or animals to be destroyed.

At least, thats the rose colored outlook. The view of those who would excuse him of everything he has ever done.

Nerd-o-rama
2012-03-06, 07:27 PM
Even worse than that outlook is the outlook that agrees with the brainwashing.

Tiki Snakes
2012-03-06, 08:24 PM
The thing about the empty shell villains in Harry Potter is that they had no business being such empty shells, as the twists and depths practically write themselves.

So people who are willing to overlook the empty-shell-ness of it fall in love with the character that should exist, rather than the one actually written down on the pages. Especially after the release of the films.

bluewind95
2012-03-06, 10:52 PM
Regarding empty-shelled characters being turned into something else...

There's this "sweet spot" where a character has just enough personality and implied backstory that they catch the audience's attention... but is empty enough to be considered a "blank slate". The audience then fills in the blanks and likes the character... but it's more the interpretation of the character that they like, not the character itself. I think that's why characters like Draco are then given, by the audience, terrible tragic backstories to make them sympathetic.

The Durvin
2012-03-09, 03:58 AM
That might be something of an oversimplification- nearly every argument in The Prince is repeated in The Discourses- which is a guide to what works best for republics.

And then there's the school of thought that suggests the whole thing was a joke, considering that most of Macchiavelli's other works are comedies.

One thing that bugs me about the whole Chuck Norris thing is that they could have used any action hero, and it might have gone better if they'd gone with one with a better sense of humor, like Steven Seagall. Chuck Norris is a very nice guy, very wholesome, very assuring; his book of commentary on Chuck Norris facts included things about how he would never kick someone to death because killing is totally not the point of martial arts and you should believe in yourself.

Another bunch of tropes related to this one is "Dead Unicorn Tropes", where everybody is convinced that something is a custom without it actually being observable before people made fun of it.

My biggest peeve, though, is people that remember Devo as "those guys in the flowerpot hats that did Whip It". They've been recording steadily since the early Seventies, and hell, they even had some other hits...that nobody remembers...in totally different costumes. These days, among other things, they do the soundtracks to Wes Anderson movies and others...hell, they did the entire soundtrack to Rugrats. They've done a lot of things! At least quit bugging them about "Whip It". It's not that great a song...

Avilan the Grey
2012-03-09, 08:13 AM
My biggest peeve, though, is people that remember Devo as "those guys in the flowerpot hats that did Whip It".

To be fair, to many many people, including me, this is true. The only thing I know about them is that I saw them on MTV wearing those hats as a kid.

MLai
2012-03-10, 09:33 PM
One thing that bugs me about the whole Chuck Norris thing is that they could have used any action hero, like Steven Seagall. Chuck Norris is a very nice guy, very wholesome, very assuring; his book of commentary on Chuck Norris facts included things about how he would never kick someone to death because killing is totally not the point of martial arts.
LOL that's the whole point of using Chuck Norris. Like how Mr. Rogers was the blood-soaked victor in the Ultimate Fight Of Ultimate Destiny.


My biggest peeve, though, is people that remember Devo as "those guys in the flowerpot hats that did Whip It".
They should just be glad that they have a stake in the cultural consciousness for something longer than 15 minutes.

Traab
2012-03-10, 11:07 PM
LOL that's the whole point of using Chuck Norris. Like how Mr. Rogers was the blood-soaked victor in the Ultimate Fight Of Ultimate Destiny.


They should just be glad that they have a stake in the cultural consciousness for something longer than 15 minutes.

Yeah honestly, to be remembered at ALL is a huge thing. Im sure there isnt a musician or group alive that wouldnt prefer to be remembered for more than a single song. As an example, Lynyrd Skynyrd used to be reported as saying they HATE not being able to have so much as a single concert without some jackasses screaming for freebird to be played. They have a ton of other songs, some really good ones, and yet freebird is what everyone keeps asking for.

Its really rare that you have a group like say, Queen, or Aerosmith, who have a fairly sizeable number of songs that could be requested at concerts. Im sure they each have a single title that is/was yelled out for more often than any other, but its not the ONLY song that gets screamed for. But even having that single title is something rare to see.