Mulan (2020) - Chink War Movie

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Cutthroat Island? The 13th Warrior? John Carter? Mars Needs Moms? Which one is the biggest lol

47 Ronin?
 
wtfNeedSignUp said:
From personal experience in fitness classes, unless you are a biological exception (like Brienne's actress) you are gonna suffer hard in tasks of strength and stamina (when it involves heavy lifting). And those are usually the most important aspects of being a frontline soldier. It's not just the battles, it's also just moving around while carrying heavy armor and weapons.
Click to expand...

Ironically, the actress isn't particularly strong. She is just very tall.

It's funny, when Brienne was dueling: they would cut to wide shots. So they could replace her with her male stunt double.

When doing physical stuff, the actress is incrediably akward. She is not athletic at all. But, she is a good actress...

With that said, I get the sentiment. The big issue though is this:

You can find female outliners who can outperform men(even rarely top men)physically.

The big issue is longevity, recovery, wear, and tear.

You can mitigate it, to a point, with proper training. But, you will never gain parity(even among genetic unicorns)...

It's a big difference with top end male/female athletes. Specifically, the difference in coaching or setting up training regiments...

You push men physically harder, longer, and more intensely before they break. When they break, they can recover faster..
 
Ihavetinyweewee said:
Ironically, the actress isn't particularly strong. She is just very tall.

It's funny, when Brienne was dueling: they would cut to wide shots. So they could replace her with her male stunt double.

When doing physical stuff, the actress is incrediably akward. She is not athletic at all. But, she is a good actress...

With that said, I get the sentiment. The big issue though is this:

You can find female outliners who can outperform men(even rarely top men)physically.

The big issue is longevity, recovery, wear, and tear.

You can mitigate it, to a point, with proper training. But, you will never gain parity(even among genetic unicorns)...

It's a big difference with top end male/female athletes. Specifically, the difference in coaching or setting up training regiments...

You push men physically harder, longer, and more intensely before they break. When they break, they can recover faster..
Click to expand...
After spending enough time getting into fitness, I got into the viewpoint where the insistence of "women can be as good as men" far more insulting towards actual athletes than the acknowledgments in physical gaps. Since it means that the top female contenders are simply not trying hard enough to be able to compete with men.
 
wtfNeedSignUp said:
After spending enough time getting into fitness, I got into the viewpoint where the insistence of "women can be as good as men" far more insulting towards actual athletes than the acknowledgments in physical gaps. Since it means that the top female contenders are simply not trying hard enough to be able to compete with men.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It's downright disrespectful. I never hear the nonsense from female athletes(unless playing for theatrics).

Probably because many of their sparring partners, training dummies, partners are men.

But reading some goofy sociologist(or some goofy pop feminist)prattling about it is nauseating...
 
Last edited:
Athletics is not a meaningful comparison.

Women could be "as good as men" in warfare from the Middle Ages onward. Medieval warfare involved mowing down and routing peasants, not formally dueling other nobles. Diet and lifestyle were more exclusionary and mattered more than sex. Additionally, warfare is not a strategy game where you put up your 100 dudes against the enemy's 100 dudes and hope your dudes are stronger. If a warlord could field an extra noblewoman "for free", even if she fought 20% worse than a male noble, why not?
Now for the head of a minor noble family, the children weren't "for free" - when younger sons could barely afford armor and had join the priesthood, daughters had to go back to the kitchen parlor to make sammiches embroider tapestries, and when a woman came by some money "of her own", if was generally too late for her. But those are social, not physical or tactical constraints.

These days it's pull your own weight, shoot sharp, don't turn your back on locals, don't put foreign objects up your butt, don't go on a rampage. Female endurance athletes (ultramarathon runners) are good and often win against men. First world professional soldiers aren't pushed to the brink of exhaustion in the field, because their lives and their equipment are expensive. Meanwhile, third worlders are stuck in the Middle Ages: if they're willing to repurpose their females as suicide bombers and accept first world 2nd gen migrant recruits, they also have the resources to train women soldiers.

That said, liberal wokeshit is bad by itself and doesn't mesh with either epic heroics or grimdarkness.
 
Safir said:
Athletics is not a meaningful comparison.

Women could be "as good as men" in warfare from the Middle Ages onward. Medieval warfare involved mowing down and routing peasants, not formally dueling other nobles. Diet and lifestyle were more exclusionary and mattered more than sex. Additionally, warfare is not a strategy game where you put up your 100 dudes against the enemy's 100 dudes and hope your dudes are stronger. If a warlord could field an extra noblewoman "for free", even if she fought 20% worse than a male noble, why not?
Now for the head of a minor noble family, the children weren't "for free" - when younger sons could barely afford armor and had join the priesthood, daughters had to go back to the kitchen parlor to make sammiches embroider tapestries, and when a woman came by some money "of her own", if was generally too late for her. But those are social, not physical or tactical constraints.

These days it's pull your own weight, shoot sharp, don't turn your back on locals, don't put foreign objects up your butt, don't go on a rampage. Female endurance athletes (ultramarathon runners) are good and often win against men. First world professional soldiers aren't pushed to the brink of exhaustion in the field, because their lives and their equipment are expensive. Meanwhile, third worlders are stuck in the Middle Ages: if they're willing to repurpose their females as suicide bombers and accept first world 2nd gen migrant recruits, they also have the resources to train women soldiers.

That said, liberal wokeshit is bad by itself and doesn't mesh with either epic heroics or grimdarkness.
Click to expand...
You are kinda forgetting about armor in medieval ages which would be very hard for a women to fight in. Using noble women in wars is begging them to be captured and raped until they can be ransomed.
Also, First world professional soldiers are definitely pushed to the brink of exhaustion. Body armor, bullet magazines, rifles and extra equipment is fucking heavy and you can't be sure you'll have a vehicle to transport you across large distance.
 
Safir said:
Athletics is not a meaningful comparison.

Women could be "as good as men" in warfare from the Middle Ages onward. Medieval warfare involved mowing down and routing peasants, not formally dueling other nobles. Diet and lifestyle were more exclusionary and mattered more than sex. Additionally, warfare is not a strategy game where you put up your 100 dudes against the enemy's 100 dudes and hope your dudes are stronger. If a warlord could field an extra noblewoman "for free", even if she fought 20% worse than a male noble, why not?
Now for the head of a minor noble family, the children weren't "for free" - when younger sons could barely afford armor and had join the priesthood, daughters had to go back to the kitchen parlor to make sammiches embroider tapestries, and when a woman came by some money "of her own", if was generally too late for her. But those are social, not physical or tactical constraints.

These days it's pull your own weight, shoot sharp, don't turn your back on locals, don't put foreign objects up your butt, don't go on a rampage. Female endurance athletes (ultramarathon runners) are good and often win against men. First world professional soldiers aren't pushed to the brink of exhaustion in the field, because their lives and their equipment are expensive. Meanwhile, third worlders are stuck in the Middle Ages: if they're willing to repurpose their females as suicide bombers and accept first world 2nd gen migrant recruits, they also have the resources to train women soldiers.

That said, liberal wokeshit is bad by itself and doesn't mesh with either epic heroics or grimdarkness.
Click to expand...
You just contradicted yourself in your own post referencing ultramarathons.

So, do athletics matter or don't they?

Also, women, occasionally, win ultramarathons(not often). Largely because of the pool of competitors which is about 10,000 worldwide.

It also doesn't tend to attract high level athletes but niche amateurs. Occasionally, you will get an elite female marathoner going up against 40 nobodies...

If there was serious money/sponsors for ultramarathoning: men would most likely dominate it unconditionally. But, that's conjecture on my part.

I'll gladly address other parts of your post. But, I think that needs addressing first...

As a heads up, you may want to look up "stress shooting" testing between males/females in the military. Modern infantrymen(especially light infantry)is extremely physically taxing...
 
Last edited:
Tragi-Chan said:
Look at The Great Wall.
Click to expand...
That movie was actually a Chinese production though, have you noticed how some Hollywood movies randomly shoehorn in Chinese actors? The inclusion of Matt Damon and the other Western actors was the Chinese doing the same thing trying to appeal to an international market. Unfortunately for them all the woke morons thought it was some sort of 'White Savior' thing.
 
verissimus said:
How the hell does Disney allow a lead in one of their films to wish death on protesters? Tell me that didn't actually happen, because that's insane.
Click to expand...
They probably didn't care since they want that sweet Chinese dollar and anything that sucks the peen of Xi the Pooh is fine by them, since they need the gov approval to stay in the Chinese market. It'll bite them in the ass when the movie bombs elsewhere since the Chinese market dried up due to Corona Chan.
 
XYZpdq said:
shortly after that they Totally A Merge And Not Got Bought by their rival Enix
Click to expand...
Sony bailed Square out first and that was such a fraking shitshow; Square almost begging Enix to buy them just to get out from Sony.
 
Overly Serious said:
Also, I lost the post but someone was talking about the implausibility of a woman soldier. My personal experiences with Chinese women aside, it's not implausible. An army comprised of women, sure - highly unlikely. An individual woman as a soldier, totally fine. And that woman being good enough to rise through the ranks and be a leader? Also fine.
Click to expand...

combat isn't won with body strength alone. any unit with a women would immediately have a different dynamic affecting their performance, minds aren't wired that way. either they will get distracted, try to protect the female (you can just discuss away millennia of evolution), interpersonal complications etc., sure, you can become a "bro" women and get treated as an equal, but that's so rare it's usually not worth the trouble.
and that is from a "modern" perspective, cultural and technological aspects would have a much bigger impact back then. gender roles were a lot more strict/set and you can bet they were more than aware of women's physical limitations during a time where individual strength and endurance was a much more important part compared to modern times where a lot of that is alleviated by gear.


Kari Kamiya said:
Yet the funniest thing about that is it has its place in animation history for being the standard for realistic CGI in the future, especially in motion-capture. It also scared the shit out of Hollywood actors like Tom Hanks who believed this film was the start of animated actors replacing real ones. Then Hanks later went on to play the Conductor through motion-capture in The Polar Express. :story:
Click to expand...

the irony is also that they've spend huge amounts on the tech itself to make it, any new film would've been much cheaper. it also wasn't necessary the film being cgi, a real live version probably wouldn't have fared much better.
 
As long as we're sperging about women soldiers like in a few posts above, it seems like women do a pretty good job in roles where physicality doesn't really matter. Soviets had good experiences using them as pilots and sharpshooters.
 
Ughubughughughughughghlug said:
As long as we're sperging about women soldiers like in a few posts above, it seems like women do a pretty good job in roles where physicality doesn't really matter. Soviets had good experiences using them as pilots and sharpshooters.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Female warriors DO exist in history. But women were on the perepheral of warfare.

To utilize them effectively, you had to use them in very specific ways.

Problem is that propaganda and misconceptions tend to color things.

Case in the point, the soviet female sniper stuff. Lot gets thrown around about that. The problem is that the soviets were notorious at propaganda. So, seperating fact from fiction is often difficult...

Keep in mind, this was a time where 8 year old boys and geriatric men were sent to the front. A place were commisaurs were attached to shoot any fleeing soldiers(on sight)...

The russian military was pathetic at the time...
 
jellycar said:
Cutthroat Island? The 13th Warrior? John Carter? Mars Needs Moms? Which one is the biggest lol

47 Ronin?
Click to expand...

In terms of budget to box office ratio, it could be the 1997 remake of Lolita which only earned $1.1 million worldwide on a budget of ~$65 million, although that film had great difficulty finding a distributor and only ever got a limited release domestically.
 
I thought the point of Mulan was that she was clever, and a great tactician, moreso than the fact that she was on equal footing with her male counterparts physically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom