Probably the worst aspect of this season of GoT is how everything that happens seems so...contrived.
Arya popping out of nowhere to destroy the Night King? Contrived, considering that the scene was littered with the undead closely watching (and guarding) NK.
Jaime Lannister suddenly abandoning Winterfell to be with Cersei even though he was being built up as a guy who was finally realizing his sister's toxic and twisted ways? Contrived and, unfortunately for the showrunners, utterly pointless.
Oh and Jaime suddenly doesn't care about the people of King's Landing? Contrived because...since when does he not care about the people? There's a reason why he's named the Kingslayer (Euron even brings it up in the same episode); it's because he killed the Mad King, Daenarys' father, before said man could immolate his own citizenry with wildfire deposits he scattered around the city. Oh and why did he even bother to fight at Winterfell in the first place? Because he wanted to fight on the side of the living! Guys...if you can't stick to your own writing, then get someone else to do so.
Sansa's hostility towards Dany? Contrived for the sake of forced drama, being a catalyst for the latter character's rather sudden descent into madness.Oops indeed!
Euron Greyjoy conveniently appearing in the same place that Jaime was going even though he jumped off ship at least a few miles away, just to engage in one of the dumbest duels I've ever seen? Contrived for the sake of killing Euron Greyjoy in a most desperate fashion.
Rhaegal getting shot out of the air by ballistas mounted on ships that were known and discussed as being present, before Dany & Co. even went near the area? Contrived and senseless, because at least Viserion's death was poignant (if still very much avoidable. Thanks Jon). Not to mention she was recklessly flying around with two dragons that are prime targets for the army that she was fighting against. UGH!
Jon Snow and Daenarys being in love? Contrived, and with glaringly-obvious absence of chemistry between these two, coupled with the somewhat immediate reveal of their being blood-related, squicky. At least Jon knows better than to go further down the incest rabbit hole. However...
Daenarys swiftly descending into blind madness that would make her father blush because she decided that an entire city of civilians became targets of her ire? Contrived, if only because this character development, while present throughout the series, still comes out of left-field due to the circumstances at play.
Cersei not getting the comeuppance that damn near everyone thought she would get, even with the variations thereof? Contrived and then some. She, along with her confused brother-lover, get buried in a pile of rubble with nothing ceremonious in the lead-up.
Sandor Clegane suddenly wants Arya to go back, even though he was totally on-board with the idea of going to King's Landing for the sake of vengeance? Somewhat contrived, because he didn't stop her all the way back in Winterfell. It took them arriving at the Red Keep as the Mad Queen was rage-burning the city for him to go, "shit, Cersei's going to get crushed to death, so she doesn't need to kill the bitch." We still got Cleganebowl at least.
At least the show is ending next weekend...What a relief.
This post is intended as a response to the video above, but I'll supply the original tweet that has garnered so much controversy (for whatever reason) here:
TJ, on his Twitter, has since revealed that he has only played the newest incarnations of the franchise and none of the originals by Core Design. So he couldn't be considered a fan and doesn't appear to do so himself anyway. However, that's not really important here, it just goes to prove my point that he's not a fan of these games. If he were, he'd be such because of the gameplay and, you know, the actual game design, and not because of the simple visual design of the main character. And really, given that you play from a third-person perspective in all of these games, you don't usually get a look at her breasts anyway unless some camera angles permit it, so the size of her tits is mostly portrayed in marketing materials. And that latter point is really important to understand, given that that's how Lara Croft became considered such a sexy character at all.
I do think that TJ is missing the point of contention many people have/have had with the above tweet, and that's the following: he's basically body-shaming Alicia Vikander, the lead actress in the starring role of Lara Croft, which is based on her current incarnation of the character. And why's he doing that? Because her breasts aren't big enough to match the promotional and marketing materials that have, through the 22 years of the franchise, through thick & thin, made her into (among other things) a sex icon in the videogame lexicon.
However, as a fan of the franchise (especially the Core Design era), I didn't much care for the big boobs aspect of Lara Croft. In fact, aside from her being a bad-ass, stone-cold (with a few exceptions) killer out to add to her collection of artefacts and treasures, and wealth, of course, I didn't pay attention to anything else about her. She was rather flat personality-wise and had undergone no character development in each game. The few exceptions, of course, being the odd gasp or disgust at the antagonists & their devious plans. The development of her character was left to the current era. No, I was a fan not because of what the marketing was trying to do, but because of how the games played. You know, the reason why we play games? If you play a game so that you can look at it, either because it has nigh photo-realistic graphics (Crysis was hailed for this aspect for years) or, in this case, because a character, no matter how few pixels could be derived from her polygons and textures, has big tits, then you're just not a fan.
I liked the adventure, the puzzle-solving, the trial-and-error, and the thrill of success that was derived from the games. I liked that they were distinct in this regard: they were designed with a deliberate, and stand-out (but not always for the right reasons) grid-based movement system. The gameplay and the movements you made in order to complete the games were designed entirely around this system of tiles. If you mastered how it worked, you mastered most of the game itself. And that works in helping you enjoy the game even more. Because I still know plenty of people who can hardly even play, let alone enjoy, the games for how they are designed.
The main reason for her being considered a sex-icon of gaming is due mostly to the marketing around the franchise. Yes, her in-game model did have (progressively with each instalment) bigger and bigger tits, but it still wasn't central to the games, even to the character. And considering you said this:
You're just wrong. And what do I have to back that up? Why, an interview with the very creator of the franchise itself, Toby Gard (who left Core Design around the release of Tomb Raider II), in which he states the following:
It was never the intention to create some kind of 'page 3' girl to star
in Tomb Raider. The idea was to create a female character who was a
heroine, you know, cool, collected, in control, that sort of thing. The
problem with those other games is that the female characters are
actually there for purely exploitative purposes. I know you could argue
that Lara with her comic book style over-the top figure is
exploitative, but I don't agree. I think it's ridiculous to say that
portraying stylised people is degrading. You can represent an over the
top hero figure by augmenting characteristics like a jutting jaw, wide
shoulders, thin waist etc. and that is not degrading to men. It may
well be a stereotype, but it seems to me that people are overanalysing
this whole thing. It's pretty simple, if women in a game are only there
to be the equivalent of quiz show floozies then they are being
portrayed in a sexist way. When it comes to Galleon there are all sorts
of women in the Galleon world, just as there are all sorts of men.
You could argue that Toby Gards' words support yours when he argues about how people were 'overanalysing' the portrayal of her figure, but it's his opening statement that shows he never intended Lara Croft to be so overly sexual in design in the first place. He wanted her to be bad-ass, stone-cold, unflapping in her drive to achieve wealth & fame. And to save the world while doing it, because other people want those same artefacts that she chases, but for nefarious purposes (destroying the world in some way) instead of simply putting them on display for fame & fortune. She's a cold-ass bitch who'll kill you without shedding a tear if you get in her way, but if you intend to use those same artefacts to rule or destroy the earth, she won't stand for that either.
As he explained later in the interview, he left Core Design (in part) because of his creative control over the franchise, which he co-created, by the way, was being taken from him. What did Core and, by extension Eidos Interactive, want for the creative department for the franchise? Why, to fixate on her sex appeal, because they felt it was an ace way to garner more and more money. And indeed, it was. But the co-creator did not agree with it, so it was one of the reasons for his departure.
So you trying to justify your crappy views by ignorantly stating that she was designed to be sexually appealing falls flat on its face, because of the very words of one of the minds behind the creation of the franchise as a whole.
You are partially wrong with the above statement, and I am being generous here. The notion that Angelina Jolie's tits were as unrealistically large as they were in the videogames (and most prolifically, the marketing material) was debunked. How did they get her tits to appear so large? Why, have you not heard of the myriad ways women make their tits look bigger than they actually are? Wire bras, for instance, raise the breasts because ordinarily, gravity makes them seem smaller due to what is commonly derided as "sagging." According to some sources, like this one, in particular, the studio used "...padding to bring her from her normal 36C to a 36D. (The videogame Lara is estimated to wear a 36DD bra.)" Oh, and those C's and D's mean something, too. It makes all the difference from breasts appearing to "sag" to them appearing to be protrusile & firm.
So the studio had to use trickery (no CGI, thankfully) in order to make Jolie's portrayal seem closer to the videogame character, as she was being portrayed in the then current spate of Tomb Raider titles. Which, by the way, was only attributed to the progressively-increased polygon count and not necessarily to those same breasts somehow getting bigger and bigger in proportion. They just appeared more realistic with each new release. This, as mentioned before, was one of the issues Toby Gard disagreed with and left the same studio over. Even Angelina Jolie, who portrayed Lara in the first run of adaptations, wasn't as "buxom" as Lara Croft, even though the studios played up the character's sex appeal as much as they possibly could. And by the way, the sex appeal might've worked for you, but it didn't for me; indeed, the tits were cartoonish and ridiculous, distracting from what was far more interesting than a couple of tweaked breasts succumbing to the laws of physics before my very eyes (some would call this "boob physics").
You may argue that her big breasts defined her as a character, but going by the statements made by her co-creator, and by what I found to be more important to each game personally, I wholeheartedly disagree. And I definitely disagree with your body-shaming an actress for her (less sexually-appealing) portrayal of Lara Croft, who was only made sexually appealing because of marketing in the first god damned place. If she wasn't intentionally created just to be treated as a sex goddess, then I agree with her creator and not with people like you, who lack self-reflection and cannot concede that perhaps they're off the mark on this subject.
I do agree that you got far too much exposure for this because, in the end, this was really another case of you trolling for attention. I already knew that about you, and I have for years, but the media clearly didn't. So that's the only reason I can forgive them at all for granting you this much-undeserved attention because you took part in body-shaming an actress for not matching the marketing that has surrounded her character for so many years. That same marketing that saw the character's co-creator resign from working with the character Funny, now I know that marketing works more easily on you than it does on me, it appears that it is you who isn't fully capable of thinking for themselves. Amirite?
I sit here with my pen, once again at my side. All of those whom I’ve considered a friend have left me by my lonesome. The pen is all that I have left. And without fail, every single time I write, it jots down the characters I desire with nary a protest or question. Should the mood strike me, I can, with this pen, smite those who have wronged me or wish to do me wrong; if my thoughts descend into the darkest, deepest reaches of the abyss, the pen will not cower or fight the will of my motions. It is ever abiding—its ink records my thoughts and my fantasies, my fictions and experiences, as it should do. For that, which is to serve the literary artist, is its very purpose. Unfailingly loyal to me: my pen will never lie to me or abandon me. I feel safety and comfort in it knowing these aspects of the object.
Yet still I find myself missing the nuances of human interaction. An object of no whim or pulse of its own cannot replace the intricacies of the soul. Yes, I’ve come to know the greatest pains and sadness having had contact with my fellow man, yet, my works on the page—my craft of literature has derived all of its inspiration from those very interactions and experiences. And sometimes it is necessary to have the ego of another mind challenge your own. So here I am, alone with my pen, and my craft is, as I have come to realize, doomed to dry out. My inspiration is limited now. No companionship or strife means I may not know what to put to paper any longer. Such is perhaps the only net positive of coping with the many angles of life’s experiences.
The sharpness of the pen shall close this book for now. I think I will go for the neck; deep and precise, and most importantly, the pain will be as quick & brief as the swiftness of a fox. Alone with my craft, this will be the very last gift my pen will give to me.
I've written a lot of material over the summer, which I admit I could have shared here. I didn't. But that changes today. Here's the latest addition to that line of work, finished just a few minutes ago.
The hype was real for this character, ever since the stinger of The Avengers (2012) revealed his involvement in Loki's invasion of New York. A sinister, purple-skinned brute who grins at the prospect of undertaking a so-called suicide mission; what's not to love about that?
The comic counterpart of this character, if you ignore his Ultimates version entirely, is an enigma: he's not out for conquest or money or something like that; he's out for love. He's in love with lady Death, who is a humanoid entity in the Marvel universe. He has been her willing thrall for decades since his first publication. He eventually became the Avatar of Death, having been granted vast powers that made his former self look like a choir-boy in comparison. As a Titanian Eternal, he can manipulate cosmic energy for many purposes, such expending it via energy beams, giving himself the ability of flight, improving his strength & durability, and many other feats. He's also a telepath, who has been so difficult to defeat in this way that even Moondragon, a high-level telepath in the Marvel universe, was unable to beat him with such powers. Also, good luck beating him at all; he's gone toe-to-toe with Galactus, Odin, Thor, the full-power of Blackbolt, and recently the Phoenix Force-powered Thane, one of his last-remaining ill-begotten children.
Then the movie about Thanos finally arrived, and while far from perfect (it is one part of a two film story arc, after all), it mostly hit the right notes. Our long-awaited greater-scope villain made a bombastic entry to the big screen in a big way. He's been praised by many so far that he's the best villain in the MCU; some even say he's one of the best villains in any comic-book movie.
I disagree with the last part, unfortunately.
Mind, I have come to accept, years ago, that these movies won't adapt everything from the comics so closely, or faithfully, rather. This is not the issue I have with the film. My problem with his depiction here is the lack of consistency, not only with previously-stated facts about his character in the MCU, but with his character development and backstory as well.
Here's a checklist of what they get right:
His super strength, which rivals, if not dwarfs those of the Incredible Hulk & Thor.
His nigh-invulnerable body.
His place of birth; Titan.
His exile from Titan for his grandiose, yet extreme schemes involving the deaths of many from his home world.
His reputation as a feared galactic conqueror.
His ability to wield the infinity gems.
His ability to speak to others, even his enemies, in a respectable, if not commendable tone. He's not the most erudite in the MCU but he's close enough. But he's not arrogant, either.
Now here's what they get wrong:
His motivation. Everything about it is wrong; it doesn't jive with his character at all. Why does he care about the welfare of worlds across the universe? With the reality-bending powers of the stones he could literally do anything, yet his first compunction is to murder half of all sentient life throughout the cosmos? And that's all he wants to do? No appeasement to the gods, especially Death, so that he can be deemed their equal?
His (as seen so far) total lack of cosmic energy manipulation abilities, as well as telekinesis, the ability to fly, and telepathy (more a defensive version, but he has been shown to 'speak' to people through their minds). Eye beams powerful enough to knock Thor off his feet? Nope. Generating black holes when and where he wants? Nada. Surrounding himself with energy shields on a whim? Zilch.
His infamous affection for Death, which is a humanoid entity in the comics. His sole motivation in the classic Infinity Gauntlet storyline, from which the film derives most of its influence, is to become her equal by showing, with the gauntlet, that he is comparable to a god himself. He ends up screwing this up by virtue of becoming more powerful than Death itself.
His exile from Titan, which was due to him growing into a mass murderer who tried to forcefully usurp power from his own father. After some time of traveling the cosmos, gathering power in more ways than one, he comes back with a vengeance. A nuclear one. He was the reason they were wiped out, not some ambiguous doomsday scenario that was explained poorly and in haste. Somehow his people were wiped out by overpopulation alone? Nobody survived? Nobody had the wherewithal to, y'know, fix the situation by any means necessary? What the fuck?
The jarring retcon of previously-stated facts of his escapades throughout the universe, such as his previously established annihilation of Gamora's people. Instead, it turns out that he killed half (to save the other half, it seems) of her people, sparing the rest, while she herself suggests that many of the rest lost the will to live. Same could be suggested of Drax the Destroyer (who wasn't originally an Earthling in this continuity) and Nebula and their people. With this movie we can now assume that he killed half of their people and spared the rest out of some insane savior logic. Who goes around the universe doing that? If you're going around killing half of the population of each inhabited planet, don't you think there would be massive repercussions of their own? Apparently he's doing all of that to save the universe from itself. WHAT?!
