posted January 22, 2014 09:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Padre35:
Think of this, twilight and the hunger games have made a lot of $$$ for entertainment businesses, HOWEVER, they also contained plots that required not only best selling books so the back story is known, but love triangles, which is not exactly what Kero has in mind (IMO).

Strong female character who is just applauded for being strong w/o the love triangle angle.

Which probably won't happen for a long time not b/c of fan boy nerds but b/c the female portion of the market WANTS to see the protagonist "get what she WANTS".

This is one of the things I enjoy about the Resident Evil series, Alice just does what she does w/ the oh so predictable stuff.

---

posted January 22, 2014 10:16 PM            

Take Tombstone, Doc Holiday is a drunk, TB infected, gambler, reality would say "not how I'd want to be" yet that character is idealized not rationalized.

Most film is myth for the masses, for a reason, now if Doc Holiday was fat, bald and obnoxious and constantly got his butt kicked, would that character then be idealized.

posted January 22, 2014 10:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Padre35:

Thing is AG, film, at least this genre, is NOT about realism, it is about idealism in the characters in the film

Take Tombstone, Doc Holiday is a drunk, TB infected, gambler, reality would say "not how I'd want to be" yet that character is idealized not rationalized.

Most film is myth for the masses, for a reason, now if Doc Holiday was fat, bald and obnoxious and constantly got his butt kicked, would that character then be idealized.

Nope.

---

posted January 22, 2014 11:01 PM            

eg. An Aquarius guy will never be as gutsy as an Aries female.

posted January 22, 2014 11:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Odette:
Ummm.. Actually what's closer to reality on that account is astrology.

eg. An Aquarius guy will never be as gutsy as an Aries female.

Just an obvious example

---

posted January 22, 2014 11:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Odette:
LOL ^^

When you pay me a visit in Aussie land.. I guess we'll find out who is more scared of spiders

---

posted January 22, 2014 11:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Odette:
LOL ^^

When you pay me a visit in Aussie land.. I guess we'll find out who is more scared of spiders

---

posted January 22, 2014 11:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aquaguy91:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Padre35:
[b]
Thing is AG, film, at least this genre, is NOT about realism, it is about idealism in the characters in the film

Take Tombstone, Doc Holiday is a drunk, TB infected, gambler, reality would say "not how I'd want to be" yet that character is idealized not rationalized.

Most film is myth for the masses, for a reason, now if Doc Holiday was fat, bald and obnoxious and constantly got his butt kicked, would that character then be idealized.

Nope.

---

Hmm, not so sure, thought Sigourney Weaver's Ripley in Aliens was very relate able

posted January 22, 2014 11:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aquaguy91:
The fact is there aren't many women who are badasses. Let's be real for a minute ... Your average woman is terrified of spiders, so how do you think they would respond to a badass villian? That is where they call their boyfriend to do the dirty work. This is why men are usually the heroes.

---

This is also why women being violent to male characters is often seen as funny, because it's generally considered absurd. If they respected women's anger and power and ability to commit violence then it wouldn't be the laugh riot it often is (or otherwise viewed condescendingly, like how "cute" she is being all wound up with a bat in her hands raised above someone's head). I believe you've asked about that before.

Oh, and about the spiders...
http://youtu.be/r0Be8LnuG3U?t=1m46s

posted January 22, 2014 11:27 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Padre35:
Video Games is where the superheroine films are to found today, even then the crossover male/female market is just not all that large.

---

Completely wrong. Check these statistics out via an official survey done by the National Science Foundation:

http://www.geekgirlcon.com/media/facts-about-geek-girls/

•According to the National Science Foundation (NSF), nearly equal percentages of men (31 percent) and women (28 percent) report they read science fiction books or magazines.

•NSF also reports that women make up almost half (45 percent) of SyFy Channel viewership.

•In a survey of Star Trek fans, 57 percent of respondents identified as female.

So Comic Book Publishers are missing out on a HUGE market by excuding female readers and movie watchers. Its just blatently stupid of them to do so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by aquaguy91:
Well even though a lot of film is fantasy the characters are still relatable in a lot of ways. The fact is people can relate to a strong male action hero because it's closer to reality.

---

Soooo... I guess in AG's version of reality, men go around dressed like this and fight a whole horde of bandits on their own?

Your "theory" does merit a blasting; Not only because its sexist but its blatently wrong. Most comic book Geeks don't look up to demi-god esque comic book heroes because its "real" to them. They do it because these super heroes are personifications of their fantasy selves; Its what they want to be but can't be because of "reality" .

posted January 22, 2014 11:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Xodian:
Soooo... I guess in AG's version of reality, men go around dressed like this and fight a whole horde of bandits on their on their own?

Your "theory" does merit a blasting; Not only because its sexist but its blatently wrong. Most comic book Geeks don't look up to demi-god esque comic book heroes because its "real" to them. They do it because these super heroes are personifications of their fantasy selves; Its what they want to be but can't be because of "reality" .

So reality has nothing to do with it.

---

posted January 22, 2014 11:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aquaguy91:
Look who it is... The PC police .. Of course you would purposely twist what I said.. I meant those characters are relatable to men in the sense that we all have the hunter/warrior in our psyche in some capacity. You would be hardpressed to find a man who doesn't play it out in real life in some capacity . Whether it be through military, hunting for sport, boxing, martial arts, contact sports, or enjoying action movies and violent video games. Most men participate in atleast one of those activities and a lot of men participate in more than one. Even though the world has changed a lot some things never change.

---

Hell yeah its the PC police! And I am placing you under arrest for having a cave man's mentality in this day and age .

posted January 22, 2014 11:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Xodian:
Hell yeah its the PC police! And I am placing you under arrest for having a cave man's mentality in this day and age .

I am not arguing about the relatibility of those characters to men out there. They can relate themselves to those characters all they want. However, to say that women can't have the same option of relating to a powerful female figure because they most likely would want a man to be the hero instead is... Moronic if not blatently sexist. Offcourse they would want to idolize a strong female figure and a personification of perfection interms of independence, and heroism.

---

posted January 23, 2014 12:14 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aquaguy91:
I never said some women wouldn't relate to strong female characters. However most women aren't interested in action films. Therefore it is smarter for the people making the movies to make them with men in mind and men relate more to male leads. Have you ever been to the movie theater? If you peak in the chick flick you will see it full of mostly women and if you peak in the latest action film or crude comedy you will see mostly men, those are facts.

---

They aren't interested in them because USUALLY the lead character isn't someone that they can relate to (i.e. a badass female.) Saying that "chick flicks" are usually sold because girls only prefer movies like chick flicks is a "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallicy (if you don't know what that is, here let me help you out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc )

Just because there is a set demographic amoung the female population that enjoys chick flicks doesn't automatically means that this is all that females enjoy watching.

There are significant number of men (yours truly included BTW) which prefer a solid storyline, interesting characters and dynamics within a movie along with the action side of it. So to place a cruddy idea that only MEN like action type movies is again, an outright blatent fallicy in argument.

So assume NOTHING and actually look upon statistics rather than derive unwarrented conclusions from your biased observations.

posted January 23, 2014 12:37 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Xodian:
They aren't interested in them because USUALLY the lead character isn't someone that they can relate to (i.e. a badass female.) Saying that "chick flicks" are usually sold because girls only prefer movies like chick flicks is a "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallicy (if you don't know what that is, here let me help you out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc )

Just because there is a set demographic amoung the female population that enjoys chick flicks doesn't automatically means that this is all that females enjoy watching.

There are significant number of men (yours truly included BTW) which prefer a solid storyline, interesting characters and dynamics within a movie along with the action side of it. So to place a cruddy idea that only MEN like action type movies is again, an outright blatent fallicy in argument.

So assume NOTHING and actually look upon statistics rather than derive unwarrented conclusions from your biased observations.

---

posted January 23, 2014 12:39 AM            

For details on their faces, check this out:

http://static.zerochan.net/Gold.Saints.full.748833.jpg

Saint Seiya was one of my fav. shows as a kid and that shouldn't come as a surprise since the saint under my sign was friggin amazing! Libra all the way!

posted January 23, 2014 12:43 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aquaguy91:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xodian:
[b] Soooo... I guess in AG's version of reality, men go around dressed like this and fight a whole horde of bandits on their on their own?

Your "theory" does merit a blasting; Not only because its sexist but its blatently wrong. Most comic book Geeks don't look up to demi-god esque comic book heroes because its "real" to them. They do it because these super heroes are personifications of their fantasy selves; Its what they want to be but can't be because of "reality" .

So reality has nothing to do with it.

---

posted January 23, 2014 12:44 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Xodian:
They aren't interested in them because USUALLY the lead character isn't someone that they can relate to (i.e. a badass female.) Saying that "chick flicks" are usually sold because girls only prefer movies like chick flicks is a "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallicy (if you don't know what that is, here let me help you out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc )

Just because there is a set demographic amoung the female population that enjoys chick flicks doesn't automatically means that this is all that females enjoy watching.

There are significant number of men (yours truly included BTW) which prefer a solid storyline, interesting characters and dynamics within a movie along with the action side of it. So to place a cruddy idea that only MEN like action type movies is again, an outright blatent fallicy in argument.

So assume NOTHING and actually look upon statistics rather than derive unwarrented conclusions from your biased observations.

---

posted January 23, 2014 01:13 AM            

Lmfao thank the stars that Angie exists.

I was waiting for this movie forever and it comes out around my B-DAY.

posted January 23, 2014 01:32 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aquaguy91:
It is not a good idea for a company to betray their target consumers/audience because they will lose money. If you want a good example just look at Nintendo. They have always had a hardcore fanbase and have always focused on quality over quantity in their games. But here lately they have tried to cater to the casual gamer instead of their loyal fanboys and they are losing money.[/B]

---

On the contrary, in many cases its a VERY good idea for a company to expand its horizons and you actually provided the perfect example for such a case (only your interpertation of it couldn't be more wrong.)

Nintendo isn't losing money because it moved away from its set demographic. Its losing money because it FAILED to move away from its demographic and only catered its games to pre-pubescent minded morons and rehashed yearly releases of games like Zelda without putting any thought process into actually developing the system specs of their gaming console or the interactibility quality of the games.

Had they had done the appropriate thing and chosen to invest a lot of money in R&D and expanded their demographic during their Game Cube days, they wouldn't be in this mess right now. But no! They decided to stick with their "fan base" as opposed to Microsoft and Sony who not only expanded their market but also placed in a LOT of time and effort in developing next gen. gaming consoles. And guess what? They won! They won because they innovated!

But since you are using Nintendo as an example, notice that one of the best selling games in the Nintendo Franchise is Metroid whose main protagonist happens to be... DUH DUH DUH! A kick ass Blonde:

posted January 23, 2014 01:53 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Xodian:
On the contrary, in many cases its a VERY good idea for a company to expand its horizons and you actually provided the perfect example for such a case (only your interpertation of it couldn't be more wrong.)

Nintendo isn't losing money because it moved away from its set demographic. Its losing money because it FAILED to move away from its demographic and only catered its games to pre-pubescent minded morons and rehashed yearly releases of games like Zelda without putting any thought process into actually developing the system specs of their gaming console or the interactibility quality of the games.

Had they had done the appropriate thing and chosen to invest a lot of money in R&D and expanded their demographic during their Game Cube days, they wouldn't be in this mess right now. But no! They decided to stick with their "fan base" as opposed to Microsoft and Sony who not only expanded their market but also placed in a LOT of time and effort in developing next gen. gaming consoles. And guess what? They won! They won because they innovated!

But since you are using Nintendo as an example, notice that one of the best selling games in the Nintendo Franchise is Metroid whose main protagonist happens to be... DUH DUH DUH! A kick ass Blonde:

So yeah... Once again, your argument fails .

---

posted January 23, 2014 01:53 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Xodian:
On the contrary, in many cases its a VERY good idea for a company to expand its horizons and you actually provided the perfect example for such a case (only your interpertation of it couldn't be more wrong.)

Nintendo isn't losing money because it moved away from its set demographic. Its losing money because it FAILED to move away from its demographic and only catered its games to pre-pubescent minded morons and rehashed yearly releases of games like Zelda without putting any thought process into actually developing the system specs of their gaming console or the interactibility quality of the games.

Had they had done the appropriate thing and chosen to invest a lot of money in R&D and expanded their demographic during their Game Cube days, they wouldn't be in this mess right now. But no! They decided to stick with their "fan base" as opposed to Microsoft and Sony who not only expanded their market but also placed in a LOT of time and effort in developing next gen. gaming consoles. And guess what? They won! They won because they innovated!

But since you are using Nintendo as an example, notice that one of the best selling games in the Nintendo Franchise is Metroid whose main protagonist happens to be... DUH DUH DUH! A kick ass Blonde:

So yeah... Once again, your argument fails .

---

posted January 23, 2014 02:13 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Xodian:
On the contrary, in many cases its a VERY good idea for a company to expand its horizons and you actually provided the perfect example for such a case (only your interpertation of it couldn't be more wrong.)

Nintendo isn't losing money because it moved away from its set demographic. Its losing money because it FAILED to move away from its demographic and only catered its games to pre-pubescent minded morons and rehashed yearly releases of games like Zelda without putting any thought process into actually developing the system specs of their gaming console or the interactibility quality of the games.

Had they had done the appropriate thing and chosen to invest a lot of money in R&D and expanded their demographic during their Game Cube days, they wouldn't be in this mess right now. But no! They decided to stick with their "fan base" as opposed to Microsoft and Sony who not only expanded their market but also placed in a LOT of time and effort in developing next gen. gaming consoles. And guess what? They won! They won because they innovated!

But since you are using Nintendo as an example, notice that one of the best selling games in the Nintendo Franchise is Metroid whose main protagonist happens to be... DUH DUH DUH! A kick ass Blonde:

So yeah... Once again, your argument fails .

---