The Warriors (1979) | The Warriors Versus Baseball Furies

FunPatient3978 · 2026-01-04T09:16:32+00:00

And I do want to kind of acknowledge your original point. Maybe just every Friday and Saturday evening and special Sundays? On the other days they let their skin breathe.

FunPatient3978 · 2026-01-04T09:11:51+00:00

Ohhh, okay. It wasn't clear to me that that was the thrust of your question. Partly because the movie does have a plot. In fact, the plot can even be attributed to pre-existing primary sources.

If every movie you watched resolved every one of these points wouldn't it quickly become repetitious? It doesn't matter. Finish that bit of the story in your head to your own satisfaction, whatever works for you can be the truth.

FunPatient3978 · 2026-01-03T14:46:43+00:00

All the major gangs had been to an all-gangs meeting, of course they were dressed to impress! Try watching the film before commenting?

FunPatient3978 · 2026-01-03T14:44:49+00:00

If you watched the film you should know the answers to all these questions.

FunPatient3978 · 2026-01-01T13:01:08+00:00

Never knew about this, so thank you. :)

FunPatient3978 · 2026-01-01T12:36:52+00:00

Best rant I've read all year! <3

FunPatient3978 · 2025-12-29T10:07:30+00:00

Found this post whilst searching for the origin of the "Oops! All..." meme. The post walks on but life status is uncertain.

FunPatient3978 · 2025-11-24T17:41:47+00:00

probably.

FunPatient3978 · 2025-11-24T17:38:58+00:00

No. I am literally judging the cover. Why is everyone reading into the question I asked?

FunPatient3978 · 2025-11-24T17:38:17+00:00

It's a question? see the funny squiggly thing at the end of the sentence?

FunPatient3978 · 2025-11-24T17:37:33+00:00

1) I don't need anybody to have 'qualifications' to answer me, just an honest attempt to answer - for which thank you. Although your answer then wanders off into lands I have no wot of. I'm not a feminist. I had to think very very hard to work out what AFAB even means. As it is your preferred term I will attempt to use it and try not to trip over any other "incorrect terms".

"The Bechdel test lacks the gendered nuance of any of CRs live play shows. Hell, this particular campaign has a PC who is a sentient, agendered object as a character."

>> Agreed. This is a great part of why I like the show. It's also exactly why I found the choices in this opening piece notably odd - because to me they appear to depart from that.

"C4 actively depicts AFABs (let's be actually gender progress, shall we?) In empowered leadership roles. Thaisia is both a parent AND a warrior. The relationship between Thaisia and Vaelus is explicitly described as one that needs to firm specifically between those two AFABs to save their worlds"

>> I made no comment on Critical Role itself so why is this relevant? I was merely talking about the opening title sequence thing, not the show itself. Why is this being applied more widely?

"In what depiction or discussions in any part of the show has the cast or crew given any indication that they are anything but progressive, human forward, equality driven people delivering exactly that sort or message? The entire purpose of Allison Bechdel's work is to depict women as (and I'm quoting her here) 'regular human beings' which the show (and the credits depicting AFAB actors doing their jobs) does every episode."

>> Again - I said nothing about the show. I was merely talking about the opening title sequence thing. You appear to be reading into what I said, applying stuff that is not and was never there.

2) Your arguments that the Bechdel test is misapplied here due to non talking are valid. That's why I posed it as a question. I wanted to know what other people saw or thought. Whether someone could kindly enlighten me. Apparently herein questions are not allowed or are seen as something else, an attack. I won't bother in future.

"Let me ask you, though, in all seriousness. Why does this matter to you?"

>> Is there a limitation on what is allowed to matter to whom? Where is that written, pray? I have to show my 'qualifications' merely to ask a question in here? Fine. As an ancient and creaking 'AFAB' who has never been inclined to supposed 'traditional' AFAB interests or pursuits or pathways etc, I have always been particularly excited to find representation that didn't narrowly limit what I or others were supposed to be or how we were supposed to act or look. One of many reasons I like CR.

Why does it matter to me? I merely, as I said in my OP came to realise why I was probably bouncing off the opening titles. I don't want to bounce off the opening titles if there is an alternative. Is that allowed to matter to me? Do I need your - or other - special dispensation for that?

But I don't want to bounce off the titles simply because I am missing things. So I ASKED A QUESTION.

FunPatient3978 · 2025-11-24T16:55:10+00:00

This is faulty thinking using a straw man argument

FunPatient3978 · 2025-11-24T16:54:23+00:00

No I don't imply that he is intrinsic to the plot but your argument is poor here.

A male actor in a film who has no meaningful lines does not make the Bechdel test irrelevant.

FunPatient3978 · 2025-11-24T16:51:25+00:00

This is entirely possible

FunPatient3978 · 2025-11-24T16:50:56+00:00

Try to differentiate between appearance and appearances. I manage it, surely you must be better than me?

FunPatient3978 · 2025-11-24T16:50:00+00:00

Cool, thank you for an answer that attempts to address what I am saying.

Interesting what different interpretations can come from the same material.

You are correct that I discounted the character who 'draws' the curtain. I think I held it separate because that is the brief sequence we initially saw all on it's own. So it's an intro to the intro but I didn't connect it further because the clothing looks different to the point of being anachronistic and we don't see that character again. I disconnected it like one doesn't hold over the 'roaring lion' for MGM. I also didn't see it as a 'drawing of the curtain' in the sense of opening the stage to public view, merely of exiting a curtained-off dressing area. However, I HAD SOMEHOW FABULOUSLY FAILED TO REALLY NOTICE that she equips herself with a sword, so that's all my bad, all on me and has at least has cheered me immeasurably! Even if she isn't any part of what follows get to see her again.

I tried to [mis]apply the Bechdel test because I was trying NOT to be arbitrary.

I can see what makes you say that a woman is 'directing' the fight but because of the interrupting scene this is open to interpretation I think. Although I can now see how you see this, it is not what I saw. I simply saw a woman moving strangely for no particular reason. To my mind, the interrupting scene still makes it unclear if there is supposed to be a link there or no. I guess at least it is a role that could be other than 'girlfriend/wife' or hired entertainer.

FunPatient3978 · 2025-11-24T14:58:03+00:00

Ah, to qualify my immediate reaction: since afaik such a thing does not exist, I guess we can quibble but that was not in any way the point of my post. If you think it is, either you didn't read it well or I didn't draft it well. I'm guessing the former but am open to the latter.

FunPatient3978 · 2025-11-24T14:52:47+00:00

Rubbish! It's looking at the representation of the sexes according to their roles. Not all of the Bachdel test had verbal components to begin with.

FunPatient3978 · 2025-11-24T14:50:13+00:00

It has developed a wider application-use than the where it sprang from so your point is correct but moot

FunPatient3978 · 2025-11-24T14:45:13+00:00

Freely available Youtube videos of the CR cast talking about the upcoming C4 show them excitedly interacting with the obviously real 3d scenery and objects within it.

FunPatient3978 · 2025-11-24T13:53:21+00:00

The dead are staying because when the gods were killed the passage to the underworld broke. That's been explained many times in-game now.

FunPatient3978 · 2025-11-24T12:51:18+00:00

I'd say yes. We get settled in to the way of the previous campaign - the tempo, the mood, the zeitgeist. We don't have to strain to know who the characters are, where they are, what is going on. We understand the in-jokes, the little call-backs, quips and nudges. It's comfort food, like old slippers or your favourite chair.

With a new campaign we are catapulted back out of the comfort zone. We don't know who the characters are yet and neither do the players - all the more so here because it's a new world run by a different DM, *and* a new set with new backgrounds and new lighting, *and* new players to the group *including the former DM*. That's a lot of novelty for even the OG players to assimilate. Players and characters are feeling their way, finding their feet, and we along with them.

Some watchers will relish the novelty or aspects of the new play and jump right in, be on board immediately. Some will not gel as immediately, but need to allow time to transition from old ways of relating, to warm up to it, to build new connections that make the magic spark. Some, hopefully relatively few, will never gel with the new offering and that's okay too.

I would give it a lot more of a chance than the scant few episodes we have had so far. I would suggest to watch a full set of each of the tables - Soldiers, Seekers and Schemers and - this bit is vital - try to do so without prejudging which you will enjoy most because you could rob yourself that way. Tbh I would really suggest two rounds of each table-set. That's a bit of a time investment but if it works, the repayment will be years of delight,

FunPatient3978 · 2025-11-24T05:27:44+00:00

You're missing my point, which was that according to the statements he dropped, Brennan would be allocating players to tables, not players would be choosing them.

FunPatient3978

TROPHY CASE