This link might help. While not topless, Luna Guardian is in a ripped shirt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Condor
http://www.zombiepodcast.com/forum/s...ll=1#post30936
Printable View
This link might help. While not topless, Luna Guardian is in a ripped shirt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Condor
http://www.zombiepodcast.com/forum/s...ll=1#post30936
Hey.. Not sure how long ago Victor left the Colony, but he sure seems to know where everything is. He knows where all the traps are, all the entrances, etc. Probably just me going way deeper then need be, but don't you think once the Mallers took the Colony they would make some changes? Probably not I guess. I dont know.
Luna Guardian is a GUY??!?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombiphobe
Ew.... forget what I said about that avatar, then..... ugh. :zombie:
Lol! I can remember a time when I didn't know what sex Luna Guardian was and some other member assumed I was hitting on him. People are funny in the cabeza.Quote:
Originally Posted by Litmaster
Interesting point. I just relistened to the part where Michael, Pegs and Kelly arrived at the Colony, and was struck by the description of the traps and barriers. My impression was that they were in place to protect against zombies, not humans. They were obvious, and marked, they even had the code on the gate by the keypad. I can't imagine the Mallers being so trusting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Penguine
I was honestly shocked that Victor was seemingly fine with Saul taking the absolute piss out of his tragically dead friend. I mean Victor saw him get bitten and then killed by Michael... seems like one of those memories that would haunt you. I guess in the zombie apocalypse you harden up in many respects (see Lizzie and Saul, a very short while after Todd's death), but still, it seemed a tad strange.
Also CJ could have simply been oblivious - remember, this is a woman who isn't great around people, and judging by her boyish attire might just not really think about her body that much, especially as a sexual object, but as we've discussed, it does seem a tad too convenient. We'll see.
I do hope we transition to Fort Irwin at some point. I do like this trio a lot, but it'd be nice to get an update on Michael, Riley, Puck, Kimmet and Tanya. I wonder if Tanya is still alive, if any of the four months hitherto will be enacted or we'll simply have the situation as it stands now. Also we should keep in mind the supposed importance of Saul's encounter with the scouting party, and what Michael meant by how it "changed everything".
Season 3 has been quite different to Season 2. Season 2 really had many stages - recovery, stagnation, adventure, active planning and then climax - Season 3 has been much more exploratory (not outright adventurous) and information based. Let's put it another way - more passive than active. Things have occurred to our heroes - they have had situations put upon them, whereas in Season 2 they very much were the masters of their own destiny.
Also, we've had no appearance of Skittles or Ink yet. The former could easily fade away into the night, but the latter I really am wondering what he got up to. I assume the hospital is now his fortress, but we don't really know. Also I think we shouldn't so easily conclude that there's only one badass zombie - I think it's too impractical in terms of sheer logistics to have only one zombie - plus I would add that The Man in the Pin-Striped Suit, from my recollection, has never been described as being The One With The Markings. There is a subtle difference, but I think it might be important. Or else I'm just chatting shit, we don't really know, but the way this show is structured it is good to raise absolutely every single little point we can.
Keep being excellent KC.
Pete and Glenn also said as much before. They said the traps and what not hadn't been changed with the Maller take over. They essentially just took over and kept everything in place barring a few positions here and there. What was it? 90/95% of the Guardians were the same? Just answering to a new overlord.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabbage Patch
Sounds like Litmaster needs to listen to more WND.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adventureless_Hero
Chapter 11 - R&R - Part 1 of 3 at about 6:33 "...a man in a grey pinstriped suit stood at the end of the hall..." and then at 10:12 - 10:24 Micheal describe the person "...there wasnt a patch of skin left on his body that wasn't colored with one tatoo or another..."Quote:
Originally Posted by fridginators
Pinstripped Suit/Tatoo guy = same person.
The beautiful thing about the way Kc has created this character(s) is not one person describes the guy the same way. They could very well be the same person, but we just don't know positively......yet.
What's wrong babe, don't you want me anymore? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Litmaster
I clearly remember Ra1th being all over me way back then and heartbroken when I appeared on the best WND episode ever. Come to think of it, I haven't seen Ra1th around all that much since...Quote:
Originally Posted by Adventureless_Hero
If you wouldn't be putting folks to sleep with your droning, they might get through the episodes and hear shocking revelations such as this!Quote:
Originally Posted by nikvoodoo
I wonder if this same thing happens the next time I disappear for months and come back. No one alert the new people then!
It's instinctual. We mate. That is our purpose as animals. Procreation. Make no disillusions about that. Unfortunately, evolution has developed our brains to the point we have intelligence. Intelligence and jealousy have made us possessive of things and others. Hence, mind games and crimes of passion.Quote:
Originally Posted by forgottenone
In other words, yeah, guys are horny and we know it.
Ugh.... how ironic that this came up during the "Romeo & Romeo" chapter....Quote:
Originally Posted by Luna Guardian
I feel like I've fallen into one of those internet safety films....
... where you think, "Ok, Finland.....so...." you imagine you are talking with this
Attachment 2046
when the reality is more probably like this!
Attachment 2047
This may have forever altered my perspective of Finland. Thanks for that, Luna.
I think I'm gonna head over to that 'manly' thread and shoot the shit with Todd or Cabbage Patch about manly stuff like trucks, and guns.... tailgating.... ball-bearings... (uh, no-- on second thought, nothing that has to do with 'balls')...
Yeeech... now if you excuse me, I have to go brush my teeth. Again. :o
This thread is full of win..
End of.
Derailed. Somebody....heeeeeelp!
It wasn't our fault. CJ distracted us :yay:Quote:
Originally Posted by Adventureless_Hero
I have been listening to this podcast since the last part of season 1, I suggest it to my friends, look forward to it every week, and also listen to We're Not Dead.
I am incredibly, incredibly disappointed with the latest episode. The "character development" in part 3 of family ties involves mostly homophobic and women hating jokes, along with a seriously uncomfortable section around CJ's nudity. It's never that I have never been bothered by subtext, but I haven't found myself enraged, either.
There have always been stereotypes poking their heads out within this podcast, and they have been fairly low-level and not overtly offensive. (Except for those awful commercials for Chapter 30, and one of the most sinister characters, Gatekeeper, being openly homosexual.) But THIS was by far the least listenable episode of the podcast, and I can't think of any reason for the dialog contained other than FILLER. If suddenly down the line it matters that Saul and Victor are not only homophobic, but also hate/distrust women, then maybe I'll feel differently, but I highly doubt it.
These repeated themes reinforce that this is an issue with the creater, and not "plot/character development."
Earth to Casey: You might have people other than (white) straight men listening to this podcast, and the dialog can affect listeners who aren't just typical dude-bros (even if the majority of feedback you get on forums would suggest that is the case.) Attitudes like the ones your characters are reflecting are outdated and unneccessary for your plotline.
If your response to this is "it's part of their character" maybe you could take a serious look at what relying on base insults centered around gender and sexual orientation says about your ability to write and carry a plot, and how a confident female or homosexual character might confront them within the story. A punch hard enough to knock them out for a few hours might suffice, but I think in a situation like the one they find themselves in I would like to see more severe consequences.
Don't worry, I've got my flame-retardent suit on for what I'm sure will be a ridiculous series of responses to this post.
So everyone should talk P.C and act like they are robot? I'm sorry but if you label anyone that has a joke about homosexual a homophobic that is also ridiculous. Normal people talk like this and will continue to do so. To think that no one can said anything,whether good or bad, about anyone else is kidding yourself. Saul and Victor are friend who like jabbing at each other and try to release pressure off each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Connie Killjoy
.....Is this a troll? Or is he really serious? O_o Either way, that was pretty funny, but not really in a good way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Connie Killjoy
Gotta agree with the first two responders...while I can understand the sentiment behind the post..really, I can....good gravy, this is how dudes talk...get over it...if we all constantly watched our p's and q's....man, that would make for a dull existence..sorry you didn't like it...but I doubt you'll get a ton of like opinions.
Ps: welcome to the forum killjoy ;)
fuck it..this pissed me off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Connie Killjoy
When the third season began..saul and Vic were not exactly friends. Really, they wanted nothing to do with each other..and now what, three months later...they're making what you might call "dude-bro" humor. Now, I'm a working guy..just a normal dude-bro myself...but this particular episode showed me just how close Saul and Vic have grown...most guys will not joke around about things like they did unless that person is a good, good friend...an acquaintance or somebody you don't know that well will react in ways similar to that wall of text you put ^up there.. So I for one found the "sophomoric" humor in this episode to be quite effective...it showed the level of trust Saul and Vic truly put with each other..
And KC...good on you for writing it that way, too many people pull punches when it comes to writing for just this reason..thank god there's still some manly writers around. Rant/
I would point out that Gatekeeper's sexuality is mentioned in passing. Victor mentions it. It's never brought up again. It doesn't influence his characterization, or personality. It simply is a part of who he is, but just like in real life it doesn't affect everything he does.
It's not like Gatekeeper walks around in full BDSM outfits with a ball gag, or a banana boat with feathers or any other stereotypically gay outfit one might see in the village during Pride week (I've been there. I've seen it). He doesn't call people honey, or squeal when he gets upset and profess his undying love for Cher/Barbra/Celine. He just is an ambitious man with his goals set who happens to like guys. I'd say the more celebrated gay characters on sitcoms are more damaging to the culture than Gatekeeper. I'd wager the character Jack on Will and Grace did more to set back the cultural perceptiom than anyone in this podcast (removing the obvious argument of national exposure on a network sitcom).
Having grown up in a jock's world: this episode didn't bother me. Growing up solidly within the theater culture and world: this episode didn't offend me. I've heard some of the nastiest things in my life come from the mouths of my gay friends. Everyone regardless of sex, race, creed or orientation has locker room talk or bathroom mirror talks similar to this episode.
I might be oblivious, but I needed Victor to tell me that Gatekeeper was gay.Quote:
Originally Posted by nikvoodoo
As for Jack... I pretty much hated that show because of his character. Total stereotype in my mind, and not even worth the butter on the bread if you ask me.
Which is exactly why I can't believe Saul hasn't thought of her that way. Even with Lizzy out of the way, so to speak, the second brain takes over. 6 mos without it...watching 'Boobie' anime (don't remember how Victor put it)... Yea, sure.. Who you trying to fool?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate Eeez
I agree with all of these responses. In my opinion, political correctness is a hinderance to society rather than a help. It raises up barriers between people of different nationalities and sexual orientations, causing them to be too wary of offending the other party that they aren't able to get along and view each other as just human beings: equal and on the same field. It puts ideas and opinions in people's heads that would not have been there before and are damaging to their view of the world.
Also, about this 'being hateful towards women' thing: did the thought ever occur, that Victor's wife actually was a bitch? She was probably a mean and hateful woman, and I don't think it's incorrect or hateful towards women to state that fact. He was describing one woman's character, not women as a whole. It's ridiculous to assume that just because he said that about one woman that he was slandering women as a whole. It's a stupid double standard that men shouldn't be aloud to say bad things about women, or use the word 'bitch' about them when the person whom they're talking about truly deserves it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Connie Killjoy
Apt name, first of all.
And I'm not even sure whether to take you seriously, given that this is your first post here. I've known other people from various forums who like to drop these incendiary text-bombs, most likely out of some narcissistic desire to shift the focus of conversation to themselves. Hell, for all I know, you ARE Kc, and have just signed on using a bogus name on a different computer just to screw with us...
...but assuming you're serious, (and this is the only air-time you'll be getting from me):
The day I suspect that Kc starts making decisions based on a political rather than artistic motivation is the day I stop listening.
If what he writes bothers you so much, you're more than welcome to do the same.
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Litmaster
If you'd have paid attention in that thread, you'd notice that I stated there that I was a man :D. You just can't keep yourself from me, hmm?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Connie Killjoy
Dude, you mad, bro.
It's obvious that the people responding to my post aren't bothered by the things I put in my post... (whoooo yay lets throw a party, you don't see an issue except that I pointed out an issue!), and so rather than arguing out with everyone who responded, I'll mostly (with some small responses) seek clarify my point.
I was VERY pissed after listening to this weeks podcast, which resulted in the above post. After reading some replies I tried to listen with taking into account that maybe there is some kind of cultural "male" context that I'm not privy to going on. Still pissed, but was able to hear more of the story that KC put into the episode than before.....
My frustration isn't about political correctness as much as it is writing. My problem with the content of this week's episode is that the homophobic cracks and weird slurs about Victor's ex wife were jarring. Why wouldn't Victor be angrier about Saul joking about his dead friend? And with NO explanation about why Victor feels the way he does about his wife, I am (as a listener) just supposed to assume that these things are true? I walked away from this episode hating these characters more than necessary.
Though, strangely enough I didn't hate Burt for saying he was going to "Skullfuck" Scratch earlier in Chapter 30.
So what's the difference?
There's a clearly underlined context to what led Burt to say that to Scratch. It's obviously not about a need to rape and defile her for being a woman, it's a defense mechanism. He's also not targeting a group of people (imagine if instead of gay jokes, Saul was making racial slurs.) In at least one episode Saul and Victor say racially heated things to each other, but it was when they still hated each other. So now, instead of saying racial shit, Saul is putting Victor into the "gay" catagory, which is safer because it's not offensive to either of them to make fun of gay people? This doesn't make sense to me.
When KC takes so much time explaining the ins and outs about the military, what things like "MOS" and other terms mean it's because he knows that the listener might not have that knowledge about what those things are. Without those things built into the conversation, someone without the knowledge base would be turned off because suddenly it's foreign. What's great about most of this story is how it seamlessly builds in that information into the story making it more understandable for those with civilian backgrounds, while those of us who know the terms aren't sidelined by it.
When I hear discource between two straight male characters like the ones in the conversation, it doesn't have context for me to understand that they are bonding. Instead, it sounded like Saul was picking on Victor, and vice versa. They sound more like enemies than friends, and then the conversation about CJ is even worse because it (to me as a listener who doesn't hang out with people that talk to each other that way) IT MAKES NO SENSE.
Sure, these conversations might seem totally rational for those of you responding, but your experience of the world is not everyone's experience and not everyone WANTS to have that lived experience. Also, the argument "well that's what I have seen/ or that's how I talk to my friends" is invalid because it doesn't apply to everyone listening, which is my point. If military jargon wasn't explained, than the only people that could listen and enjoy it would be people in the military.
When the writing draws expectations from a narrow vein of lived experience, it's not good writing. It's not reachable, and it turns people who don't relate off to it. I get pissed when I'm distracted from the story with nonsensical bullshit, and miss the stuff I want to hear. I don't listen to this story for political correctness, I listen to it for the story, and those conversations got in the way of my experience and I feel entitled to say so, even if there isn't a person on this forum who agrees.
And as for this, the Gatekeeper business ....
"It's not like Gatekeeper walks around in full BDSM outfits with a ball gag, or a banana boat with feathers or any other stereotypically gay outfit one might see in the village during Pride week (I've been there. I've seen it). He doesn't call people honey, or squeal when he gets upset and profess his undying love for Cher/Barbra/Celine. He just is an ambitious man with his goals set who happens to like guys. I'd say the more celebrated gay characters on sitcoms are more damaging to the culture than Gatekeeper."
I am still uncomfortable with the Gatekeeper, who I see as super creepy, sinister, and a cold-blooded killer, as being theonly character on the show who has been defined as gay. Sure, there are suspicions about Riley, but her character is an alchoholic and also in the closet if she is a lesbian. I am entitled to feeling that way and having someone list out all the ways that he isn't perpetuating a stereotype isn't helpful to convincing me otherwise. Also, when I'm unexpectedly jarred by two characters having a conversation like Victor and Saul's, the tolerence I need to have to "get over" all the other stuff that I could get over for the sake of the story becomes strained.
I have a far reaching critique of Will and Grace so it's not about gay/queer people having to be in a good light, just not different lighting, that makes them look stereotypingly one way or another. Something about Gatekeeper and his position doesn't sit right with me at all, and the fact that the story pointed out him being gay also seemed out of context. Perhaps it was thrown in there to make people feel better about him staring at naked Peggs and Kelly. Still, it struck me as odd and uncomfortable.
And as for the Killjoy cracks? Haha fuck yeah. I'm pretty sure none of you went to bed crying because I "Killed" all your "Joy", you can be sure that I sit a little taller everytime someone says something about how the name fits. :P
ill not quote all ^ that..just to save space
good on you for coming back with a valid, well said response to those of us who questioned your first post. while i don't altogether agree with your opinions on a few bits, as evident by my second response :hsugh:...i (and many of us on here) will respect the hell out of someone who stands up for what they feel and not be ashamed to say so. but i guess thats the most difficult aspect of writing, well, anything with such a large base of source material like this...elements of all the things we have discussed here are going to come up...it would be completely unnatural if they didn't..if your going to try to include all walks of life within a story...include them..
but again..no more hate here from me..keep doing your thing...and we can all talk about it...together.
Not reading that walla of text.
Who has the cliffs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osiris
Killjoy: "I'm mad because Kc isn't more pro-gay."
That's what I took from that as well. Ms KJ is entitled to her opinions and, like 7odd, I respect her standing up for them. But she's clearly not been around guys all that much if she thinks what KC wrote is anything more than friendly fun-poking. As for women-hating, where'd you get that? I'm honestly really curious to knowQuote:
Originally Posted by Litmaster
The odd thing is that I forgot that point about gatekeeper until Killjoy brought it up. All I remember was that gatekeeper was bad guy based on the story of him shoot the survivors that were try to bring a child in. I wonder if this more of an issue of humor then anything else. Comedy is subjective and is one of of the most difficult thing for an actor to do. They can evoke angry, think of Scratch and what she did to Burt. They can evoke sadness, think of Sam in the arena . But to make someone think something funny sole depends on the listener or viewer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Litmaster
I'm glad Connie Killjoy replied without anger and made a reasonable argument, to which 7odd was able to calmly give props and keep the door open for CK to feel she(?) could share any further concerns or observations.
However, Saul and Victor's banter was far from homophobic. I thought Victor's response was dismissive of Saul's comments and he didn't get caught up in feeling as if his sexuality was being threatened, so he didn't rail against Saul's playful jibes. Had Victor responded otherwise, then I could understand the argument for homophobia.
If these were legal here I'd want one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Litmaster
When Vee finally gets written in as Riley's love interest, can we have it after his brief but passionate fling with CJ, thanks very much.
Personally, I call my college girlfriend of 4+ years as "She Who Must Not Be Named" and make all sorts of claims equating her to Voldemort. Is she evil incarnate? No. Did she do a metric shit ton of stuff that I feel like she deserves the title sometimes? Yes. Do I believe Victor truly believes his ex-wife is as evil as he portrayed? No, I think he in a serious moment would allow some nuance in his description.Quote:
Originally Posted by Connie Killjoy
He has known Saul longer. He knew Fernando for less than 3 months. He's been with Saul for at least 4 now. What I took away from that is Saul has replaced Fernando in Victor's life. I thought the conversation was crossing a line, but what informed me that this was normal and ok was Victor's reaction. If he doesn't have issue with it, then neither do I because this is obviously a string of jokes Saul has touched on before and Victor has become desensitized to it.
Friends press friends buttons to get a rise out of them.Quote:
In at least one episode Saul and Victor say racially heated things to each other, but it was when they still hated each other. So now, instead of saying racial shit, Saul is putting Victor into the "gay" catagory, which is safer because it's not offensive to either of them to make fun of gay people? This doesn't make sense to me.
They are picking on each other. That's how men bond. This isn't the first media outlet to show men in this light. Extreme example See: Fight Club.Quote:
When I hear discource between two straight male characters like the ones in the conversation, it doesn't have context for me to understand that they are bonding. Instead, it sounded like Saul was picking on Victor, and vice versa. They sound more like enemies than friends, and then the conversation about CJ is even worse because it (to me as a listener who doesn't hang out with people that talk to each other that way) IT MAKES NO SENSE.
Never once did I say you needed to get over it and you are perfectly entitled to react to the story however you will.Quote:
And as for this, the Gatekeeper business ....
I am still uncomfortable with the Gatekeeper, who I see as super creepy, sinister, and a cold-blooded killer, as being theonly character on the show who has been defined as gay. Sure, there are suspicions about Riley, but her character is an alchoholic and also in the closet if she is a lesbian. I am entitled to feeling that way and having someone list out all the ways that he isn't perpetuating a stereotype isn't helpful to convincing me otherwise. Also, when I'm unexpectedly jarred by two characters having a conversation like Victor and Saul's, the tolerence I need to have to "get over" all the other stuff that I could get over for the sake of the story becomes strained.
but the point I'm trying to make is simple: You can scream out boogie man all you'd like that Gatekeeper is an evil character who happens to be gay, but that's just it. He just happens to be gay. You're making a big deal out of it when there is nothing there showing him as gay. He's a character. He happens to be gay. Durai, Latch, Scratch and Tardust are all "evil" characters who happen to be straight (I'll assume on Scratch and Durai as this hasn't been discussed with them). I find Tardust far more offensive as a straight man who tried to rape another character. He's forcing his sexuality and dominance on someone. Gatekeeper does not. It's a facet of his personality. If Gatekeeper was depicted molesting men as they were inspected, I'd be right there with you. That would be a horrible depiction of a gay character who is using their position to force people into unwilling sexual encounters.
And it didn't strike me as out of the ordinary at all. But that's my opinion just like yours is. Neither right, nor wrong...just is.Quote:
Something about Gatekeeper and his position doesn't sit right with me at all, and the fact that the story pointed out him being gay also seemed out of context. Perhaps it was thrown in there to make people feel better about him staring at naked Peggs and Kelly. Still, it struck me as odd and uncomfortable.
Oh, well, I felt that the dialogue between Saul and Victor was bang on the money, it was very fluid and natural and the only reason I think about it at all is because it has been brought up here.
I guess we all do see things differently, or hear them in this case, but for me, this episode was pretty much flawless in terms of writing and execution. Really enjoyed it.
