General Discussion

[quote name="cheeseboytyrell" date="2015-01-19 17:29:43"]joss whedon's known to do this (not that it's ok, but i was expecting it...) but what really bothered me was drax's comment. totally out of character and made NO SENSE for him to say that. [/quote] @cheeseboytyrell Nnnah pretty sure it was in-character. He heard one of the inmates at the prison call Gamora that and just used it too. I highly doubt he knows what it is. This is the guy who can't understand basic metaphors, or any word that alludes to anything else. I think it was just him picking up new words (y'know like "finger on neck means death"?)

[quote name="cheeseboytyrell" date="2015-01-19 19:05:56"][quote name="leviathans" date="2015-01-19 18:57:18"][quote name="cheeseboytyrell" date="2015-01-19 17:29:43"]joss whedon's known to do this (not that it's ok, but i was expecting it...) but what really bothered me was drax's comment. totally out of character and made NO SENSE for him to say that. [/quote] @cheeseboytyrell Nnnah pretty sure it was in-character. He heard one of the inmates at the prison call Gamora that and just used it too. I highly doubt he knows what it is. This is the guy who can't understand basic metaphors, or any word that alludes to anything else. I think it was just him picking up new words (y'know like "finger on neck means death"?)[/quote] thats exactly why i don't think it's in character for him to say it if he doesn't know what it means.[/quote] He's repeated things he doesn't fully understand before, just because he doesn't fully grasp the concept of it doesn't mean it's out of character for him to use it. Like the finger-on-death metaphor, which he clearly didn't understand 100% either but no one says that was out of character ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[quote name="MythGriffin24" date="2015-01-19 18:57:50"]@VAE: First off, I don't condone murder or any other shameful acts in fiction. I would say it's up to the author to portray it in a way appropriate to the story. Terrible things happen in real life, so the author has a right to write about awful things. The way it's portrayed is the thing that makes or breaks a story. If a writer writes about a terrible murder but doesn't make it sound appealing, then it's fine because the author isn't condoning the act, and it's a part of the story just as murder can be a part of real life. However, if the author makes the murder seem appealing or glamorous, then I'd frown upon it because it has unfortunate implications, since they'd be making a crime look glorified. So it all depends on how it's written. If the troublesome content is written in a way that doesn't make it titillating or acceptable to the reader, then it's fine. It's when the author glamorizes negative behaviors that it can be a problem. [/quote] Hmm. The problem is what you define as glamorization? With some definitions, the whole lot of movies you seem to approve of could be portrayed as glamorizing violence... but that'd be kinda stupid. I'd say the problematic things are more subtle than that - failure at realism (say, a war where the 'good' side has no losses for no reasons at all except them being the 'good' guys) , for a lack of better word, the author sounding like they're writing with one hand down their pants (ever seen the FATAL rpg rulebook? Yeah, ugh, it's about twice as horrible as its reputation) , and the like [quote] Oh-sorry I misunderstood your comment. I mistook what you were saying and didn't realize that you meant certain kinds of people were less common-one of your words were censored so I was confused. Sorry. ^^; [/quote] Ugh. Sorry. Happens. [quote] I'm not sure I follow your argument-are you saying that characters calling each other rude words depends on context?-but I guess there isn't always a consequence. [/quote] Neither is there IRL. Otherwise I'd be up my ears in consequences x3. [quote] Like I said, it's up to the author to portray the things in their writing in a responsible manner. The only time I'd take offense to name-calling in fiction is if it made it seem acceptable, casual, or unnecessary. Let's use cussing as an example. Sure, it isn't always attractive, depending on context, but if your characters swear a lot and there isn't a justified reason for it-let's say the characters swearing were raised in a poor area and they aren't smart enough to use more intelligent word choices-then why would you include it? [/quote] Because people from all kinds of setting swear a lot? (I do IRL, for sure). It's a character trait, and well ,the reason is that the author wanted to have such a character around. [quote] Just because you can do something in fiction without consequence doesn't mean you should. Basically, I'm saying that yeah, fictional actions may not have real-life consequences, but just because you can doesn't mean you should if it's unnecessary for the story. [/quote] I think fictional characters should act as dictated by their character motivations, personality, and the confines of their universe. As long as they stay true to those things, their actions are OK for a story. [quote] And I agree-making a character a certain gender/race/sexuality/etc. for political purposes isn't a good idea because the character usually isn't interesting as a result. What I meant was that I'm glad Marvel is trying to reach out a bit and provide more diverse characters to appeal to different members of the audience while still making them interesting. I'll use Black Widow and Nick Fury as examples of what I mean. They're both interesting, enjoyable characters, but you never feel that they were created just to add diversity to the story. That's what I meant by that-I honestly think creating diverse characters for political reasons isn't a good idea. [/quote] I guess agreed there.