Welcome to the Gaming Den.
http://www.tgdmb.com/phpBB3/
Any idea about how you got it not to show in your post?Koumei wrote:
No, see... That's the point of House. He's especially awesome. He only receives the interesting cases, and that's why there's so many uniquish diseases that show up there.Koumei wrote:(although interestingly enough, unlike most medical drama shows it uses real medicine - the bullshit is just expecting us to believe all these 1-in-a-billion things go to that hospital, and that he hasn't been jailed for his methods... yet)
That's not quite true. There's also the slow but sure character derailment--J.D., Eliot, Dr. Cox, Kelso, 'Lavernagain'..I mean House being formulaic, sure, but with Scrubs you could montage scenes from multiple episodes into an episode long mish mash and no one would even notice. Or care.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheUnfairSex wrote: Scrubs: Elliot breaks up with J.D. about 90 seconds after sleeping with him to return to her last boyfriend, Sean. J.D.'s jealousy is depicted as petty, and the right thing to do is "remember [that he's her] friend" and help make her relationship with Sean work out. Later on, J.D. convinces Elliot to leave Sean, only for him (J.D.) to realize that he doesn't love Elliot. This is painted as an unspeakable act of evil, met by Elliot with "comic" female-on-male violence.
And, in a later episode, Elliot breaks off her engagement with Keith, then later on in the episode gets back together with him, only to break up with him again right after that. But when Keith acts basically as angry to her as she was at J.D., Elliot cannot understand why Keith would possibly be angry at her. Even though what she did to Keith was just as bad as what J.D. did to her, and maybe even worse, seeing as it they were going to get married in a couple weeks. But Keith's angry is portrayed as whiny and an overreaction, and nobody pointed out this was exactly the same as the way Elliot acted when J.D. broke up with her. God, this show is unfair.
Not to mention that when they finally sat down and talked about their problems, Elliot brought up the fact that JD convinced her to leave Sean while the worst thing JD ever brings up about her is that she wanted to be his sex buddy. Really? Are you sure you're not forgetting anything here?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharacterDerailment wrote: JD on Scrubs. He starts the series as a nervous, somewhat needy young doctor who also displays genuine wit, intelligence, charm and sensitivity. At this point, he's something of a second Butt Monkey, has had his emotional neediness become a classic example of Flanderization and has, quite frankly, degenerated into something of an idiot. An inability to locate Iraq on a map or explain the difference between a Senator and a Congressman are the two most flagrant examples of that, but are far from the only ones.
Lago PARANOIA wrote:This is all that needs to be said about Scrubs, pretty much:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheUnfairSex wrote: Scrubs: Elliot breaks up with J.D. about 90 seconds after sleeping with him to return to her last boyfriend, Sean. J.D.'s jealousy is depicted as petty, and the right thing to do is "remember [that he's her] friend" and help make her relationship with Sean work out. Later on, J.D. convinces Elliot to leave Sean, only for him (J.D.) to realize that he doesn't love Elliot. This is painted as an unspeakable act of evil, met by Elliot with "comic" female-on-male violence.
And, in a later episode, Elliot breaks off her engagement with Keith, then later on in the episode gets back together with him, only to break up with him again right after that. But when Keith acts basically as angry to her as she was at J.D., Elliot cannot understand why Keith would possibly be angry at her. Even though what she did to Keith was just as bad as what J.D. did to her, and maybe even worse, seeing as it they were going to get married in a couple weeks. But Keith's angry is portrayed as whiny and an overreaction, and nobody pointed out this was exactly the same as the way Elliot acted when J.D. broke up with her. God, this show is unfair.
Not to mention that when they finally sat down and talked about their problems, Elliot brought up the fact that JD convinced her to leave Sean while the worst thing JD ever brings up about her is that she wanted to be his sex buddy. Really? Are you sure you're not forgetting anything here?http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharacterDerailment wrote: JD on Scrubs. He starts the series as a nervous, somewhat needy young doctor who also displays genuine wit, intelligence, charm and sensitivity. At this point, he's something of a second Butt Monkey, has had his emotional neediness become a classic example of Flanderization and has, quite frankly, degenerated into something of an idiot. An inability to locate Iraq on a map or explain the difference between a Senator and a Congressman are the two most flagrant examples of that, but are far from the only ones.
Lago PARANOIA wrote:2) If American history proves anything white/male/Christian guilt is needed to get any justice done. So embrace that [male] guilt and stop trying to weasel out of your cognitive dissonance you fucking pussy.
fixed that for you, though, apparently that happened a long time before it was no longer funny (IMO). Though I think that's where the largo character derailment started...Lago PARANOIA wrote:Then again, doing an archive trawl sometimes leads to a rude awakening, like with MegaTokyo or Shortpacked. The tragic thing was that those two comics were legitimately funny/interesting... until RWPiro and RWLargo got pissy at each other and Largo left
Perfect. Just lock both of 'em in a room and wait for the inevitable emo-suicides.Maxus wrote:He's almost like Sasuke in the depth of his, "Your suffering has not equaled my suffering" attitude.
Meh, genocide's not a good motivation, and pretty damn close to being a universally evil one... If V were a paladin in one of my games who had declared death to all Black Dragons, I'd either make him fall so hard he left a larger crater than Asmodeus, or I'd write in some very, very interesting implications on the nature of good and evil. The players might get a choice on which...Bigode wrote:Uh, the thing's that, hilariously, the whole "we should try to understand them" can work with goblinoids, and can't with chromatic dragons. So, Vaarsuvius' act was less morally questionable than most stuff that passed unnoticed - why the sympathy for the dragons then?
If dragons are universally evil and irredeemably so, then why would killing all of the black dragons be an evil act?Meh, genocide's not a good motivation, and pretty damn close to being a universally evil one... If V were a paladin in one of my games who had declared death to all Black Dragons, I'd either make him fall so hard he left a larger crater than Asmodeus, or I'd write in some very, very interesting implications on the nature of good and evil. The players might get a choice on which...
We have to feel guilty for our penises and accept being treated as dogs. According to Lago PARANOIA (as far as I can tell). Clear now?Lago PARANOIA wrote:I'm not sure of the point that you're trying to make, Bigode. That was a zinger of some sort or an attempt to catch me in an act of hypocrisy I think. Why don't you spell it out for me?
A) it's not all black dragons. B) the motivation isn't merely killing in itself. C) blah, blah, blah: D&D defines genocide on fiends as non-evil, and people keep forgetting black dragons aren't really different. What alternative conception of alignment you use isn't my problem.Prak_Anima wrote:Meh, genocide's not a good motivation, and pretty damn close to being a universally evil one... If V were a paladin in one of my games who had declared death to all Black Dragons, I'd either make him fall so hard he left a larger crater than Asmodeus, or I'd write in some very, very interesting implications on the nature of good and evil. The players might get a choice on which...
I'm not really surprised that you mixed up feeling shame for real events that happened and are still happening today that the overclass is ignoring with fictional hypocrisy.We have to feel guilty for our penises and accept being treated as dogs. According to Lago PARANOIA (as far as I can tell). Clear now?
All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again?Lago PARANOIA wrote:You know, this Scrubs-bashing and House-bashing, though fun, seems kind of familiar.
http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=46706
But Lago, men (a bunch of men I'm about as related to as I am to Hitler, possibly less) are still being troglodytes who only care about sex*! The show's teaching us the message that we've to pay for it, dammit!Lago PARANOIA wrote:I'm not really surprised that you mixed up feeling shame for real events that happened and are still happening today that the overclass is ignoring with fictional hypocrisy.
Look, you start a thread on how if we're tangentially related to any overclass (and let's face it, I don't live in a slum, so one could say it's not just being male either, and the guys in rich countries would b only worse) we've to feel horrible about it, you start a thread on how TV shows make you cry, and I'm "butthurt"? Sure.Lago PARANOIA wrote:Are you still feeling angry about that thread? I'll tell you what, if you're still feeling butthurt about that thread then you should bump it. I thought you got over it, but I'll settle your hash.
Plus Fvcking One. Not that there's any chance of him being right.Count_Arioch_the_28th wrote:You know, every time I see the word "butthurt", I want to punch that person in the face, regardless if it's right.
I fucking HATE internet one-upmanship.