Jump to content
Trebla

Stranger Things Season 2: Three Musketeers really are the WORST (Spoilers)

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Astromech said:

I don't even think it was 2nd Edition yet in 1984. I think it was still just AD&D. I'm not sure if I started with AD&D or 2nd Edition, but it was almost exclusively 2nd Edition if my memory serves me right.

Ooh, you're right; 2nd ed didn't come out until 1987. (Psionics were in 1st ed, btw, but the class didn't show up until an expansion in 2e). 

2 minutes ago, Astromech said:

I hope someone gets a vorpal sword next season.

That's a good one for iconic D&D things, though might not be available due to the Lewis Carroll reference. A bag of holding would be another good one I'd like to see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

How so? Politics - like most of modern language - was a word invented by the greeks, and the root is Polis - which literally means 'people'. 

You literally brought it up in this thread a couple pages back as an example of how things shouldn't be political. Surely you remember a couple hours ago?

You're the only one wanting to debate Billy -  IE, offer another position other than 'he sucks and his character sucks and his arc sucks'. 

Him being gay would be fine if it mattered at all. If they want to actually have an arc about him being gay and repressed is actually a major deal, that might be okay depending on how they do it. Right now, the problem is that his arc is boring, not particularly sympathetic, and if they make it all because he's repressed and gay it's a deeply weak stereotype. Jung and Freud are kinda old, ya know - maybe we could move on past 150 years of bad archetypical analysis and go to Billy being an interesting...character?

And again you bring up this bizarre patriarchy thing like it's a zinger. Seriously, what's up with that? Can you show us on the doll where the bad patriarchy touched you?

Sounds like exactly the right time to talk about having our art be political, then. Note that I didn't mention Trump or Clinton once - again, that's all on you - but somehow you share the notion that we're in a deep crisis but art shouldn't remotely discuss it. If art isn't meant to be important, why have it? 

Except that the greek word was Politika. And that literally means "affairs of the states". Says so in the first lines of the definition. 

I was referring to the discussions after Force Awakens was released. So basically almost two years ago. And since then Rey's character has been discussed and I don't think we're gonna bring anything new to it either. 

Jung and Freud are old, sure. So is Dostoyevsky. I don't think when things were made is much of a point to make at all. 

Agree with you on last part. Art is important and should discuss it. My pov is just that it doesn't have to be all art. Take from that what you will. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

A bag of holding would be another good one I'd like to see. 

ooooh, Deck of Many Things. BRING IT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JonArryn said:

Except that the greek word was Politika. And that literally means "affairs of the states". Says so in the first lines of the definition. 

See @Gertrude's comment above. 

Just now, JonArryn said:

I was referring to the discussions after Force Awakens was released. So basically almost two years ago. And since then Rey's character has been discussed and I don't think we're gonna bring anything new to it either. 

Again, for someone who doesn't want to talk about political viewpoints you bring them up a lot. I was referring to your bringing up Rey earlier in this thread. Sorry you couldn't remember writing something a couple hours ago. Might want to have that looked at. Would be a shame if the mind flayer got you like it did Will. 

Just now, JonArryn said:

Jung and Freud are old, sure. So is Dostoyevsky. I don't think when things were made is much of a point to make at all. 

When you're talking about the relevance of archetypes and whether or not something is an old stereotype, talking about how old it is seems to be relevant. One of the complaints about Billy being a Evil Gay Villain is that the stereotype is very old and stupid. 

Just now, JonArryn said:

Agree with you on last part. Art is important and should discuss it. My pov is just that it doesn't have to be all art. Take from that what you will. 

What I take from it is that you don't want your entertainment to challenge you in any way, and you don't want anyone else to actually engage with material that you find entertaining. You especially don't want anyone to object to any aspect of entertainment you like, but are fine objecting to entertainment other people like (see Force Awakens and Rey, above). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 

That's a good one for iconic D&D things, though might not be available due to the Lewis Carroll reference. A bag of holding would be another good one I'd like to see. 

Boots of Dancing :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gertrude said:

ooooh, Deck of Many Things. BRING IT!

That's one of the best ones for getting an adventure going. 

Hmm. If we're going for truly iconic but somewhat obscure things...maybe the Eye and Hand of Vecna? That'd be a way to bring Brenner into it a bit, too - have him be 'saved' by welding parts of Demogorgon onto him, and them talking about him being a Lich like Vecna. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since people here right now actually seem to remember playing in the early 80s, I have a question. When we rolled up characters, we rolled out stats and THEN decided what the character was going to be, right? Like I couldn't be a wizard if I rolled a low INT, right? Am I misremembering or did my DM misinterpret or am I just crazy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That's one of the best ones for getting an adventure going. 

Hmm. If we're going for truly iconic but somewhat obscure things...maybe the Eye and Hand of Vecna? That'd be a way to bring Brenner into it a bit, too - have him be 'saved' by welding parts of Demogorgon onto him, and them talking about him being a Lich like Vecna. 

Not so obscure to D&D fans these days, I'm thinking. Do you watch Critcal Role?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gertrude said:

Since people here right now actually seem to remember playing in the early 80s, I have a question. When we rolled up characters, we rolled out stats and THEN decided what the character was going to be, right? Like I couldn't be a wizard if I rolled a low INT, right? Am I misremembering or did my DM misinterpret or am I just crazy?

No, that's totally right. You rolled your stats, then picked your class. There were lots and lots of house rules about stats, but that was the basic one from the getgo. At least that's how we all played it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Astromech said:

Well, Chernobyl is 1986 ;)

And the zone is an excellent setting for creepy supernatural stuff. A Russian version of ST set there would have me convinced it's ending in tragedy and now I want a spin off.

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I'm glad that the show took some potshots at 80s shitty culture too - from Max clearly not having the high score because she's a girl and girls don't play video games, 

Someone I follow on Twitter complained that this didn't actually become a thing until the 90s so it's a bit inaccurate/they joked that Mike lit the spark that burned into gamergate (their idea of starting it, my word choice to riff on the last Jedi trailer).

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Similarly, making the only gay person in the entire show an asshole villain is a political statement. It might not be intended as such, but it certainly is one, and it's one that has been made over and over and over again to the point where it's a trope

If Will is actually queer, as was often suggested by others in season 1, it would help since Billy then wouldn't be the only one. Still a shit character at this point though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Billy actually gay? I suppose it’s possible but I wouldn’t say there’s a huge amount to support it so far. He’s got a bit of a weird thing going on with how he reacts to Steve but other than that he was flirting with Mike and Nancy’s Mum and at one point he’s with a girl while he’s waiting for Max.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Someone I follow on Twitter complained that this didn't actually become a thing until the 90s so it's a bit inaccurate/they joked that Mike lit the spark that burned into gamergate (their idea of starting it, my word choice to riff on the last Jedi trailer).

You know, I didn't think about it but that feels true to me. The arcade was a place to hang out on the weekends when your parents dropped you off at the mall. Me and my friends did this ALL the time.

Warning: sexist comment coming up. There were definitely games that attracted boys v girls and vice verse. Obviously not exclusively, but it was a reality for me and my friends. Any game was better than no game, but I preferred Centipede and Dig Dug over Asteroid or other games. The best was obviously Joust and I will fight anyone who says otherwise.

Also, there were not enough people gathered around watching the boys play Dragon's Lair. That game was always absolutely packed with people watching and quarters lining the screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

Sure, the word is Greek, but just because they developed a word doesn't mean it didn't exist before that. I'm pretty sure early man had clans with power structures and society, therefore they had politics. When artists made fertility idols, they were making a statement that fertility was an important value in their culture. In making that idol, they were also not making idols of other things that weren't as important, and thus making a political statement. So yeah, pretty much everything is political in one way or another. The person who made that idol had the luxury of being able to spend time and resources on it because the society deemed it important work. If he spent his time and the tribe's resources on creating a flower instead of a venus figure, maybe he doesn't get fed or he doesn't get a mate or is denied whatever else the clan deems proper.

I don't even know why I hopped into this conversation because it's annoying to read the back and forth, but this point bugged me a lot.

Well, what you're referring to here is more about human nature then politics. Power structures that is inherent to humans are not what politics are about. As you linked the definition, it's quite clear. Politics is about affairs referring to states and cities. How a state should be built and hov government should be structured etc. Your example with clans is way before humans had cities or states, therefore it's not political in the sense that we have been debating. And that is one example.

A lot of prehistorical art wouldn't have been made because of whole clans approval either. And it's hard to say anyway, there were both larger groups and smaller during a very large span of history. But painting a bull and different symbols on a cave wall makes a political point? I'd say the evidence is much more in favor for it having religious statements rather then political ones. And I don't know how much we should go into the history or our probably differing views of it but anyway. Were there power structures during this time? Of course. Out of necessity, people did what they were most suited for. Men hunted, women gathered and took care of children. Because a clan is built that way it's not a political point, it's how humans survived. Any other structure and the clan might not make it through winter.

I know we won't agree, but this thing with everything being political is a pretty late view on it and pretty much a marxist one. 

42 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Again, for someone who doesn't want to talk about political viewpoints you bring them up a lot. I was referring to your bringing up Rey earlier in this thread. Sorry you couldn't remember writing something a couple hours ago. Might want to have that looked at. Would be a shame if the mind flayer got you like it did Will. 

When you're talking about the relevance of archetypes and whether or not something is an old stereotype, talking about how old it is seems to be relevant. One of the complaints about Billy being a Evil Gay Villain is that the stereotype is very old and stupid. 

What I take from it is that you don't want your entertainment to challenge you in any way, and you don't want anyone else to actually engage with material that you find entertaining. You especially don't want anyone to object to any aspect of entertainment you like, but are fine objecting to entertainment other people like (see Force Awakens and Rey, above). 

You seem to like to repeat points a lot. You repeating them doesn't really enhance them, just a pointer. Two times often suffices. 

Well, you seem to be able to do this all night, which ideologically possessed people often can. If you think that the way society is going regards to free speech and how more and more things are affected by what is deemed pc and not, then by all means, that's on you. If people in art starts to give in because of what some people think is pc and not, then we will head in more of a totalitarian direction. Which you said you didn't want, but your opinions and statements say the opposite. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wonderful thing about politics is that it's invisible when it aligns with your beliefs if you don't stop and examine it. Thinking art is getting more political just means your beliefs are getting less dominant and of course you'd be upset about that. This whole thing started because I praised the show runners for choosing to show a small piece of the racism that existed in the 80s, I could easily think this isn't political - that it was simply injecting a greater level of realism into the show. Ditto with showing the government experiments, which are based in things the US government actually did and is one of the central plot points of the show, left traumatised people that survived the experiments and these people never had justice. More realism for the story. 

I don't see it that way, and its not, but neither is the opposite in the many pieces of art that chose not to show these things. And I'm not telling artists what to do, I'm expressing my appreciation for what they did do.

@Gertrude were the quarters on the screen the queue for the machine? Reminds me of pool tables in bars, but I was too young for that in arcades in the 80s/didn't have local access to one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

Is Billy actually gay? I suppose it’s possible but I wouldn’t say there’s a huge amount to support it so far. He’s got a bit of a weird thing going on with how he reacts to Steve but other than that he was flirting with Mike and Nancy’s Mum and at one point he’s with a girl while he’s waiting for Max.

But did you see his face after he walked away from flirting with Mike's mom?  He seemed to look like he needed a shower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, karaddin said:

The wonderful thing about politics is that it's invisible when it aligns with your beliefs if you don't stop and examine it. Thinking art is getting more political just means your beliefs are getting less dominant and of course you'd be upset about that. This whole thing started because I praised the show runners for choosing to show a small piece of the racism that existed in the 80s, I could easily think this isn't political - that it was simply injecting a greater level of realism into the show. Ditto with showing the government experiments, which are based in things the US government actually did and is one of the central plot points of the show, left traumatised people that survived the experiments and these people never had justice. More realism for the story. 

I don't see it that way, and its not, but neither is the opposite in the many pieces of art that chose not to show these things. And I'm not telling artists what to do, I'm expressing my appreciation for what they did do.

@Gertrude were the quarters on the screen the queue for the machine? Reminds me of pool tables in bars, but I was too young for that in arcades in the 80s/didn't have local access to one.

Good points. You didn't start anything really, but my response to it seemed to have opened a mini version of Pandoras Box in the thread. And as I said before, I didn't direct my points at you, but to society in general. But that people will have different politcal views is inevitable, and I kind of knew the political leanings here before I brought it up. 

People aren't telling artists what to do, yet. We'll disagree here but I think that art is more politicized today then it's ever been. When Lennon started becoming a political figure, people wondered what was going on, and this was late 60's. He even got flak from his band members for becoming to involved politically, and they thought it wasn't their role to play. Today every other musician is shouting from the rooftoops what party is the best, or what candidate people should vote for. So I just can't agree with you, that it's only because of my views that I see this. I think it's clear with facts. Marlon Brando is another example. When he stood up for the civil rights movement people were a bit surprised, and inspired. Artists before hadn't really done things like that, and today you see it all the time. 

I agree with you about realism to the story though, and your example regarding the Mk. experiments is a great one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, karaddin said:

@Gertrude were the quarters on the screen the queue for the machine? Reminds me of pool tables in bars, but I was too young for that in arcades in the 80s/didn't have local access to one.

Yep. I personally didn't queue for specific games, but I sure as hell loved watching Dragon's Lair. It was hard to get a look because so many other people were trying to as well. I never did understand how people knew who's quarters were whose and how more fights didn't break out over it. a few quarters, sure, you can keep track, but those rows were long and always full. I saw some people using paint or nail polish to mark their quarters, but mostly not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, JonArryn said:

I think that art is more politicized today then it's ever been

Your examples are of specific artists, not art. I think there is an important difference.

And I'm really walking away this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

Yep. I personally didn't queue for specific games, but I sure as hell loved watching Dragon's Lair. It was hard to get a look because so many other people were trying to as well. I never did understand how people knew who's quarters were whose and how more fights didn't break out over it. a few quarters, sure, you can keep track, but those rows were long and always full. I saw some people using paint or nail polish to mark their quarters, but mostly not.

Haha you've preemptively answered my next question, because I was wondering about that. I guess each person just fixated on their own quarter so knew where it was, and there was a general respect for the sanctity of the queue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×