Geek and gamer girls

[Slayn82]

Hello to all,

while checking my usual blogs, i found this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eJmYKN_1QE&feature=fvsr). Its a parody of Candy girls. Hope you guys (and girls) like it.

[onthetown]

Do you mean California Girls?

It's awesome. This one, I mean.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

For some reason this and similar parodies (I'm looking at YOU 'Afraid of Girls skit!) depress me a little. I guess it's because actually ARE dudes like Comic Book Man out there... like my twin brothers :smallsigh:

Luckily they're tall, thin and without glasses so they might just be able to break out of the stereotype.

[Trog]

this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eJmYKN_1QE&feature=fvsr)
*A troglodyte wearing headphones pokes his head into the thread*

Trog is Trog and Trog approves this message.

[Malfunctioned]

*A troglodyte wearing headphones pokes his head into the thread*

Trog is Trog and Trog approves this message.

Malfunctioned is not Trog (my failbeard can never be epic enough :smallfrown:) but he is also very much approving of this message. :smallbiggrin:

[Copacetic]

Awesome.

Also, holy boop, is that Oz from Buffer the Vampire Slayer?

[xPANCAKEx]

who cares?!? It has michelle boyd!

[Silly Wizard]

I recognise Han Solo, Laura Croft, and Psylocke, but who is the last girl dressed as (in the scenes where they actually wear clothes)?

[Innis Cabal]

The Baroness from Cobra

[SDF]

Awesome.

Also, holy boop, is that Oz from Buffer the Vampire Slayer?

Er, Seth Green? I mean he was Oz, but that is hardly what he is known for.

[Dr.Epic]

Er, Seth Green? I mean he was Oz, but that is hardly what he is known for.

Yeah, that's him. And I love that one of the DVD's flying towards the camera is Robot Chicken. Pretty good, though the lack of Felicia Day in that video upsets me.

[Copacetic]

Er, Seth Green? I mean he was Oz, but that is hardly what he is known for.

...
It's what I recognized him for.


Yeah, that's him. And I love that one of the DVD's flying towards the camera is Robot Chicken. Pretty good, though the lack of Felicia Day in that video upsets me.

The lack of Felicia Day in every video upsets me, and I suspect a great deal of people.

[Dr.Epic]

The lack of Felicia Day in every video upsets me, and I suspect a great deal of people.

A web video about geek and gamer girls without her is a huge injustice.

[V'icternus]

A web video about geek and gamer girls without her is a huge injustice.

I concur.

Still, I liked it. Despite the absence of Geekdom's favourite lady.
And it's true, y'know, geek and gamer girls do exist.

And most of them can out-game you any day of the week. :smalltongue:

[Em Blackleaf]

The lack of Felicia Day in every video upsets me, and I suspect a great deal of people.
Agreed.

As both a California and geek/gamer girl, I can vouch for this song's accuracy over Katy Perry's song. I do not have sun-kissed skin. Even the palest foundation is too dark for me.

However, I have unlocked many an achievement.

[Innis Cabal]

I honestly don't get the appeal of any of these girls. Sure they're cute but that's not the same as attractive. They all look pretty plain to me.

[ghost_warlock]

The slightest hint of that song induces blind rage (:smallfurious:) in me so I had to watch the video on mute.

Kind of mediocre. But, then, I can't help but feel I'm missing something if I don't have lyrics, right? :smallsigh:

[Dr.Epic]

Is anyone else a little disturbed by the one chick dressed as Han Solo?:smalleek: That's one image I can live without.


I concur.

Still, I liked it. Despite the absence of Geekdom's favourite lady.
And it's true, y'know, geek and gamer girls do exist.

And most of them can out-game you any day of the week. :smalltongue:

Agreed. At my school the two clubs I am most involved in have a lot of geek/gamer girls.


I honestly don't get the appeal of any of these girls. Sure they're cute but that's not the same as attractive. They all look pretty plain to me.

The appeal is this: most girls don't like to play video games (I'm not sure about the actual percentage of girls who game, that's just the idea, I'm not stereotyping just stating something that's a belief) and to find a girl who does game (even one who may not be smoking hot in terms of sexuality/looks) is hot because they're someone a guy can date and game with (both very important to most juvenile men).

[Gullara]

geek/gamer girls.
The appeal is this: most girls don't like to play video games (I'm not sure about the actual percentage of girls who game, that's just the idea, I'm not stereotyping just stating something that's a belief) and to find a girl who does game (even one who may not be smoking hot in terms of sexuality/looks) is hot because they're someone a guy can date and game with (both very important to most juvenile men).

Geekiness is an attractive trait for a girl to have.

[Innis Cabal]

Actually, that's still a sterotype. And that dosn't make them physically attractive, which was my point. All of these girls (Day included) are...rather plain. They're certianly cute, but compared to a great deal of other celebs and just normal people...they're not -that- attractive. They're...ordinary, which I suppose is a change from the norm when it comes to "icons".

I just find the idea of "Gamer Girls" insulting, as I find the term Gamer as well but that's not here or there. Pushing them to some sex symbol because "Women don't game" which is flat out wrong only objectifies them and makes the sterotype worse. On both sides in fact.

[SDF]

Geekiness is an attractive trait for a girl to have.

It can be. It is more that people look for people with similar interests. So if you are into what you consider geeky things you will favor a someone that shares that interest.

The vast majority of girls I know game in some sense of the word.

[ghost_warlock]

Actually, that's still a sterotype. And that dosn't make them physically attractive, which was my point. All of these girls (Day included) are...rather plain. They're certianly cute, but compared to a great deal of other celebs and just normal people...they're not -that- attractive. They're...ordinary, which I suppose is a change from the norm when it comes to "icons".

I just find the idea of "Gamer Girls" insulting, as I find the term Gamer as well but that's not here or there. Pushing them to some sex symbol because "Women don't game" which is flat out wrong only objectifies them and makes the sterotype worse. On both sides in fact.

Personally, I don't push them to [be] a sex symbol because they don't game, but because I realize that if there's anyone out there who I could have a successful relationship with it's going to be a geek/gamer girl.

Unattainability may be attractive, but approachability is even sexier.

[Fiery Diamond]

It can be. It is more that people look for people with similar interests. So if you are into what you consider geeky things you will favor a someone that shares that interest.

The vast majority of girls I know game in some sense of the word.

I see what you did there.

Also - I've never understood this whole idea of "not super sexy, therefore nothing special in terms of physical appearance." :smallconfused: :smallannoyed: :smallmad: :smallfurious:

In any case, objectifying women for ANY reason is a bad thing, but so is calling them out as being not-highly-attractive because they don't match the current sex symbols. Both of these things are abhorrent.

[KnightDisciple]

Wow. Nice video. The cameos were hilarious, and rapping Seth Green was perfect.

As for the other bits being talked about here...

Personally, those ladies were plenty attractive in my book. Nothing...overwhelming, if you will.

As for "gamer girls" being more "attractive", I think SDF pretty much said it. It's less that knowing a girl games suddenly makes her "look hotter", as it does tell you "hey, you can actually have an involved conversation with this girl about something you both enjoy".

I mean, I try to be at least slightly knowledgeable about a fair variety of topics, but someone who really enjoys at least some of the same things I do? That's much better than someone who has almost no intersecting interests.

[Moonshadow]

All I can say is, whoever the chick is that is singing, her voice is better suited to tormenting dogs.

My freaking ears, gah :smallannoyed:

[Philistine]

Yeah, that's him. And I love that one of the DVD's flying towards the camera is Robot Chicken. Pretty good, though the lack of Felicia Day in that video upsets me.

I briefly thought Katee Sackhoff was Felicia Day, the first time she showed up in the video. The long, straight, dark red hair, you know.

[Innis Cabal]

Calling someone not attractive really isn't an insult, unless they're very vain. And I never postulated it was a negative or in some manner a bad thing. I simply don't understand the drooling and the raving over these girls.

It's alright to be average in apperance...in fact, it's normal. It's stranger to get upset over calling someone average then it is to call them such. Why is that so offensive? Calling someone plain.

[Fiery Diamond]

Just to reiterate: In the context of this video, their attractiveness is not the issue (though in many other situations, it might be, hence my little rant about them being referred to as nothing special). The issue here is that this video quite clearly objectifies the women.

Which, in my view, is WRONG.


Edit: In response to ^:

Because physical appearance, like some other areas, is not objectively, qualitatively describable/measurable. There is no such thing as looking "average" or "plain," insofar as the terms are used to mean neither particularly attractive nor particularly unattractive. Every judgment of the physical attractiveness of another is 100% subjective. Example: I find big-chested, makeup-wearing human females to be less appealing than small-chested, unadorned human females. I think that non-formfitting outfits look better than formfitting outfits do. I think most supermodel celebrities look flat-out ugly. Obviously, these are all subjective.

TL;DR: "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all, especially since it's just your opinion anyway."

[Gullara]

It can be. It is more that people look for people with similar interests. So if you are into what you consider geeky things you will favor a someone that shares that interest.


Exactly:smallbiggrin:

[SDF]

And if it were serious you could make the claim it objectifies gamers as fat guys with no moves that clearly want girls like that, but can't have them.

But, it is humorous satire.

[Savannah]

And here I thought this would be a thread about how many of us are on here.

Don't worry, Azure Butterfly, Oz is who I recognize Seth Green for, too. (That and Joker in Mass Effect.)


to find a girl who does game (even one who may not be smoking hot in terms of sexuality/looks) is hot because they're someone a guy can date and game with (both very important to most juvenile men).

Interesting that you say those are important to juvenile men. I tend to see juvenile men only wanting women for their looks, and the more mature men are interested in women who share their interests. Or am I misunderstanding your point? :smallconfused:


The issue here is that this video quite clearly objectifies the women.

While I agree that objectification of women is wrong, as a geek/gamer girl I have no problem with this video. It's clearly meant to be silly.

(Also, beauty is measurable, and there are trends in what people find attractive. For example, people find symmetrical faces more attractive than asymmetrical faces. Men tend to prefer women who show signs of being able to bear healthy babies.)

[Skeppio]

The appeal is this: most girls don't like to play video games (I'm not sure about the actual percentage of girls who game, that's just the idea, I'm not stereotyping just stating something that's a belief) and to find a girl who does game (even one who may not be smoking hot in terms of sexuality/looks) is hot because they're someone a guy can date and game with (both very important to most juvenile men).


Agreed, although I don't think that's just a thing juvenile men go for. I mean, I certainly wouldn't want a significant other who dislikes my interests, and of course vice-versa. If I dislike their interests and they dislike mine, we're gonna swiftly find ourselves with nothing to say to one another. A girl one could game with would appeal to most gamers, regardless of age.

And you all know there are no gurls on teh internets anyway. :smalltongue:

[Savannah]

And you all know there are no gurls on teh internets anyway. :smalltongue:

*looks down front of shirt* Uh...unless this thing I'm on isn't the internet...

:smallwink:

[Skeppio]

*looks down front of shirt* Uh...unless this thing I'm on isn't the internet...

:smallwink:

Sorry, these are the laws of teh intarwebz. No gurls allowed, like the Lil' Rascals clubhouse. *Obligatory TOGTFO*

Dear gods, my 'internet jerk' lingo is atrocious! Lucky I'm on the good end of the net and never have to use it. :smalltongue:

[Gullara]

*looks down front of shirt* Uh...unless this thing I'm on isn't the internet...

:smallwink:

It appears there has been a mistake. Your internet access will be terminated in

3...

2...

1...

Connection terminated

[Dr.Epic]

Interesting that you say those are important to juvenile men. I tend to see juvenile men only wanting women for their looks, and the more mature men are interested in women who share their interests. Or am I misunderstanding your point? :smallconfused:

Well, by juvenile men I meant men who still game. Granted, that doesn't make some juvenile, but at a certain age playing a game on a console can appear a little weird. Although I guess the norm's changing and it isn't so odd for older adults to play games (so long as they have actual responsibilities).

[Savannah]

Ah, I see. A good number of people I know who game are not at all juvenile, so I was working from a different base assumption.

[Dr.Epic]

Ah, I see. A good number of people I know who game are not at all juvenile, so I was working from a different base assumption.

Yeah, so long as they're not clones of Vork or Zaboo there isn't anything really wrong with it. Also, one of those girls was Michele Boyd right?

[Raistlin1040]

My father is in his 40's, and has been gaming since the 80's, so I don't think Gamer=Juvenile is a good link to make. That said, I do agree that profiling someone as a "Gamer Girl" isn't really fair. I mean, to what extent do our hobbies define who we are? My last girlfriend played all video games, but we didn't game much together because we liked different kinds (She played more FPS, I played more RPG). My current girlfriend isn't a console gamer at all. But it's not some kind of "Gamer Girl" status that drew me to either of them.

Relationship dynamics, or whatever you'd like to call them, are far more complex than "I like X. Do you also like X?" Yes, I think it's cute to be able to game with your SO, and yes, it's something that I would probably enjoy doing from time to time. That doesn't mean that every girl who games is somehow a goddess, or that every girl who doesn't isn't worth the time of a Gamer. Creating the myth that gamer guys only like Gamer Girls just lends weight to the stereotype that gamers are socially awkward people who can't have a conversation that's not about video games.

There's nothing wrong with liking a girl who games. However, turning them into sex objects is, in my opinion, no more right than turning someone like Angelina Jolie into a sex object. Sure, we might be a little more accepting of a subculture, but when it comes down to it, all the "There are no girls on the internet" "Tits or GTFO" "Girls don't play video games", etc...All it does it objectify women that have a certain hobby. Women: They're People Too.

Edit: That said, I have nothing against this video, that was just my opinion on the nature of the "Gamer Girl" in general.

[RabbitHoleLost]

Is anyone else a little disturbed by the one chick dressed as Han Solo?:smalleek: That's one image I can live without.
Dude, she's totally my favorite =)

[Coidzor]

...Ok, did not want to... associate caree bears with that...

Ow....

[Castaras]

Meh. Exceedingly bland.

Gimmie Game On or Do You Wanna Date My Avatar any day over this.

[Strawberries]

It appears there has been a mistake. Your internet access will be terminated in

3...

2...

1...

Connection terminated

*Hides with baggy clothes and cuts her hair* I can't let them find me. CONNECTION OR DEATH! :smalltongue:



The appeal is this: most girls don't like to play video games (I'm not sure about the actual percentage of girls who game, that's just the idea, I'm not stereotyping just stating something that's a belief) and to find a girl who does game (even one who may not be smoking hot in terms of sexuality/looks) is hot because they're someone a guy can date and game with (both very important to most juvenile men).

While I started to talk to my significant other because we both shared a passion for video games, we weren't juvenile in any sense of the word (I was 19, he was 22). Having common interests and things to talk about helps a lot in a relationship (I'm 26 now, he is 29, we live together and are going to get married soon :smallbiggrin:). EDIT: Oh, for the record, we're still both gamers. And geeks. :smallwink:
Also, I couldn't date a non-geek boy. Geekdom is a essential condition for me.

As a geek and gamer girl, I approve of that video. It made me laugh.

[Gullara]

Meh. Exceedingly bland.

Gimmie Game On or Do You Wanna Date My Avatar any day over this.

What a coincidence I just saw those videos for the first time today. They are rather... interesting... and pretty good:smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

[mangosta71]

Actually, that's still a sterotype. And that dosn't make them physically attractive, which was my point. All of these girls (Day included) are...rather plain. They're certianly cute, but compared to a great deal of other celebs and just normal people...they're not -that- attractive. They're...ordinary, which I suppose is a change from the norm when it comes to "icons".

If you've ever seen a picture of a celebrity without her hair and makeup done, or that hasn't been airbrushed, you know that most of them aren't any cuter than the girls in this video.

[Copacetic]

Don't worry, Azure Butterfly, Oz is who I recognize Seth Green for, too. (That and Joker in Mass Effect.)


Yes! *fist pump*
I'm not the only one. :smallcool:

[DeadManSleeping]

Meh. Exceedingly bland.

Gimmie Game On or Do You Wanna Date My Avatar any day over this.

THANK you. Seriously, while the sentiment expressed was entertaining, the cosplaying was nice, and Seth Green (and yes, he's Oz to me too) was featured, the whole thing was just a generic pop song with geek-related lyrics. Contrast with the "The Guild" music videos, which are original in style, aren't afraid to go all-out on humor, and happen to have Felicia Day in them. Seriously, it's not even a contest.

[Dr.Epic]

Dude, she's totally my favorite =)

I didn't need that idea of Harrison Ford in my head.

[Mertseger]

Yeah, so long as they're not clones of Vork or Zaboo there isn't anything really wrong with it. Also, one of those girls was Michele Boyd right?

Yeah, that was Michele.

I didn't find a lot of the video to be that funny, although I did lol at Stan Lee and Hyjal.

[SDF]

THANK you. Seriously, while the sentiment expressed was entertaining, the cosplaying was nice, and Seth Green (and yes, he's Oz to me too) was featured, the whole thing was just a generic pop song with geek-related lyrics. Contrast with the "The Guild" music videos, which are original in style, aren't afraid to go all-out on humor, and happen to have Felicia Day in them. Seriously, it's not even a contest.

Wait, is THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urNyg1ftMIU) the video everyone is gushing about? Because the music is at least as bland, stylistically similar replacing geek things with MMO things. And my biggest question after watching it is how the heck Day forgot how to sing after Dr. Horrible.

[Forever Curious]

Having common interests and things to talk about helps a lot in a relationship (I'm 26 now, he is 29, we live together and are going to get married soon :smallbiggrin:)

Aww... congrats Strawberries. :smallsmile:

And really, when it comes to blatant silly parodies like this, I feel we should remember that it's just satire and chill (see also: MST3K mantra).

[Dr.Epic]

Wait, is THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urNyg1ftMIU) the video everyone is gushing about? Because the music is at least as bland, stylistically similar replacing geek things with MMO things. And my biggest question after watching it is how the heck Day forgot how to sing after Dr. Horrible.

1. No. Look at the title. Are they the same?

2. What you talking about? That video is awesome!:smallbiggrin:

[Innis Cabal]

I think people need to learn what satire is, because that video isn't satire what so ever.

[SDF]

I didn't say it was bad, but it is being lauded as so much better than the OP video and it is pretty much the exact same thing. There isn't anything more original about it. Both capitalize on geek culture, while one more specifically promotes a web series.

[Skeppio]

I think people need to learn what satire is, because that video isn't satire what so ever.

Here's a basic run-down.

TvTropes Link. You're doomed. DOOOOOMED! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SatireParodyPastiche)

[Forever Curious]

I think people need to learn what satire is, because that video isn't satire what so ever.


Satire: 1) the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.

So, based on this definition, it really depends on the intent of the makers of the video whether or not this is "satire" or simply a parody. It certainly has elements that can be attributed to the genre, but based mainly on intent and interpretation.

[Gullara]

So, based on this definition, it really depends on the intent of the makers of the video whether or not this is "satire" or simply a parody. It certainly has elements that can be attributed to the genre, but based mainly on intent and interpretation.

I would be inclined to say its a parody.

[SilverSheriff]

My God... Its Made Of Win.

[DeadManSleeping]

I didn't say it was bad, but it is being lauded as so much better than the OP video and it is pretty much the exact same thing. There isn't anything more original about it. Both capitalize on geek culture, while one more specifically promotes a web series.

1. It has better lyrics. Much more fun and entertaining

2. Its connection to the web series is a huge plus for a lot of viewers, really.

3. It has more Felicia Day (and Amy Okuda, dear GOD Amy Okuda)

4. It's not about Girl Power; it's about MMO-based romance (and manages to not resort to the "actually a dude" joke). Topic is important to many people (like meeeeeee!).

5. I like the music in it better, and I suspect that's true with everyone else who says it's a better video. Lyrics by Day and music by Whedon (not Joss)? Made of Pure Win.

Any questions?

[Ignition]

I clearly am the only mutant alive who would place Robin Thorsen above Felicia Day on the list of "The Guild" members I would hit like the fist of an angry god :smallwink:

[Eldan]

Yes! *fist pump*
I'm not the only one. :smallcool:

Totally not. When I first saw him online talking about Robot Chicken, I totally went "Hey, Oz makes TV shows!"

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

Game On (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMrN3Rh55uM) is much, much better than Do You Wanna Date My Avatar, though.

[Zaydos]

Game On (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMrN3Rh55uM) is much, much better than Do You Wanna Date My Avatar, though.

Now that one I liked.

[Keld Denar]

Who is the redhead that salutes at the end of the video then? Because I paused it and the 4 girls who are singing are accounted for, so she's not one of them. Is that who I think it is?

:squee:

[SDF]

Katee Sackhoff. Starbuck from the new BSG.

[Dr.Epic]

Game On (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMrN3Rh55uM) is much, much better than Do You Wanna Date My Avatar, though.

What? I strongly disagree.

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

What? I strongly disagree.

IMO it's much funnier lyrically and visually, and IMO the music is a lot better as well (but then, I like Bollywood and don't like... whatever one might call Do You Wanna Date My Avatar).

:smalltongue:

[Forevernade]

Hmmm, I am trying to introduce my gf to Magic the Gathering. Anyone have any tips?

[Zaydos]

Hmmm, I am trying to introduce my gf to Magic the Gathering. Anyone have any tips?

I introduced my ex to it and she loved my elf deck, decided to claim it as hers. My sister-in-law claimed my older brother's elf deck.

[Dr.Epic]

Hmmm, I am trying to introduce my gf to Magic the Gathering. Anyone have any tips?

Get her her own deck so she has something to play with when you're not around to teach her. That's what my friend did for me. I borrowed a friend's deck and read the cards during my free time. I'm still not that good (I took a hiatus and only just recently started playing) but it'll help her learn the rules.

[Savannah]

Hmmm, I am trying to introduce my gf to Magic the Gathering. Anyone have any tips?

Step 1: Make sure she wants to learn.

I've never played Magic the Gathering, so I can't offer many tips, but I can say that having someone try to teach me a game (especially a fairly complex game) that I don't want to play would be a huge turn-off, both to the game and to the person.

Step 2: Figure out how she learns best.

Some people prefer to learn by having the game explained to them, others prefer to read the rules at their leisure. Figure out which one she is and teach accordingly.

[Forevernade]

She explained to me that she likes playing poker, but she isn't very good because she doesn't like to think ahead. Is there a deck type that doesn't need to think too far ahead of the game? I am thinking a reactive deck like black or red.

She is interested, but only from a fantasy perspective. I think she would only play with me because I would turn it into a story about wizards and witches and planar travel, using the subtexts and the picture art. Either that or she would play with any of her girlfriends, if she convinces them to play too.
She wouldn't read the rulebook herself. I will try to teach her by just playing the game?

[Ignition]

She explained to me that she likes playing poker, but she isn't very good because she doesn't like to think ahead. Is there a deck type that doesn't need to think too far ahead of the game? I am thinking a reactive deck like black or red.

Red's about as basic and reactive as you can get. A proper Sligh deck sounds about right, what with swarms of goblins and Lightning Bolt and the like. Alternately, Green Stompy, lots of big creatures, land grabbing, and mana-generating elves.


She is interested, but only from a fantasy perspective. I think she would only play with me because I would turn it into a story about wizards and witches and planar travel, using the subtexts and the picture art. Either that or she would play with any of her girlfriends, if she convinces them to play too.
She wouldn't read the rulebook herself. I will try to teach her by just playing the game?

I can strongly suggest that you do one of the two following options:

1. Buy/make (as in use Proxies printed off of Gatherer) a few 'easy' decks: Sligh, Stompy, Lifedrain/Discard/Graveyards, Control/Wizards, and Defense/Lifegain - one for each color, RGBUW in that order. Play them a lot, get her used to the "theme" behind each color. Start with Sligh and Stompy, then get her used to the Control and Defense decks, and eventually get to the Lifedrain/Discard deck. Get her involved in the process, explain why you're picking certain cards over others, but don't get too technical.

2. Take a set with some strong storyline flavor to it, like Ravinca or Lorwyn, and have her make her own set based on the elements presented that strike her fancy. Explain the flavortext of each color, and how that translates into the strategy implied in the card mechanics.

If she's in it for the flavor, don't just hand her an M11 deck that is just optimized for balance. Go straight for the flavor, and use that as a metaphor to explain the tactics, so that they're intrinsically linked in her mind. Take it as slow or as fast as she cares to understand it.

Good luck with it! :smallbiggrin:

[Forevernade]

Red's about as basic and reactive as you can get. A proper Sligh deck sounds about right, what with swarms of goblins and Lightning Bolt and the like. Alternately, Green Stompy, lots of big creatures, land grabbing, and mana-generating elves.



I can strongly suggest that you do one of the two following options:

1. Buy/make (as in use Proxies printed off of Gatherer) a few 'easy' decks: Sligh, Stompy, Lifedrain/Discard/Graveyards, Control/Wizards, and Defense/Lifegain - one for each color, RGBUW in that order. Play them a lot, get her used to the "theme" behind each color. Start with Sligh and Stompy, then get her used to the Control and Defense decks, and eventually get to the Lifedrain/Discard deck. Get her involved in the process, explain why you're picking certain cards over others, but don't get too technical.

2. Take a set with some strong storyline flavor to it, like Ravinca or Lorwyn, and have her make her own set based on the elements presented that strike her fancy. Explain the flavortext of each color, and how that translates into the strategy implied in the card mechanics.

If she's in it for the flavor, don't just hand her an M11 deck that is just optimized for balance. Go straight for the flavor, and use that as a metaphor to explain the tactics, so that they're intrinsically linked in her mind. Take it as slow or as fast as she cares to understand it.

Good luck with it! :smallbiggrin:

Thanks, strong advice.

[Ignition]

Haha, no problem :smallwink:

I've taught a lot of people how to play Magic, and even when I'm about ready to ditch my cards, I love it a lot, so anything I can do to encourage people to play the game is time well spent.

Anyway, yeah, geeky girls.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

Is anyone else a little disturbed by the one chick dressed as Han Solo?:smalleek: That's one image I can live without.

If, by "disturbed," you mean "enticed," and by "a little," you mean "very," then yes.

[KnightDisciple]

If, by "disturbed," you mean "enticed," and by "a little," you mean "very," then yes.I think she's taken, though. 2 of those 4 girls are married. Seth Green is married to Clare Grant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clare_Grant), and Rileah Vanderbilt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rileah_Vanderbilt) is married to Adam Green.

...*Awkward Cough*

Anyways. I like this video. I also like the 2 Guild music videos, though Date my Avatar is probably the the...least favorite? I still like it, but less than the other 2. If that makes sense.

[The Glyphstone]

Pretty catchy music, at least.

[Joran]

Pretty catchy music, at least.

Blog post about the making of the video: http://micheleboyd.com/2010/09/g33k-g4m3r-girls-video/

I'm somewhat saddened that a couple of them can't sing. It really makes it hard for me to go through the video to catch all the background pieces and cameos.

I did enjoy it. I only wish it was an original song rather than a parody of an existing one.

P.S. Why am I not surprised that Stan Lee would be willing to appear in a video with attractive young women?

[Ignition]

P.S. Why am I not surprised that Stan Lee would be willing to appear in a video with attractive young women?

We are talking about the same Stan Lee who designed Stripperella, aren't we? :smallwink:

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

I think she's taken, though. 2 of those 4 girls are married. Seth Green is married to Clare Grant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clare_Grant), and Rileah Vanderbilt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rileah_Vanderbilt) is married to Adam Green.

...*Awkward Cough*

Anyways. I like this video. I also like the 2 Guild music videos, though Date my Avatar is probably the the...least favorite? I still like it, but less than the other 2. If that makes sense.

She is dressed like Han Solo. How big into commitment can she be?

[KnightDisciple]

She is dressed like Han Solo. How big into commitment can she be?....Pretty big?

I mean, Han settled down with Leia. *Shrugs*

[Dr.Epic]

If, by "disturbed," you mean "enticed," and by "a little," you mean "very," then yes.

I don't need to think of Han Solo like that.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

....Pretty big?

I mean, Han settled down with Leia. *Shrugs*

On paper, maybe. :smallwink:

[KnightDisciple]

I don't need to think of Han Solo like that.It's not Han Solo. Just a girl dressed generally like him.


On paper, maybe. :smallwink:...:smallconfused:

Yeah, I've yet to see anything that tells me why that shouldn't be considered a reasonable conclusion anyways.:smallconfused:

[Dr.Epic]

It's not Han Solo. Just a girl dressed generally like him.

It's causing my brain to associate a hot girl (something I think is attractive) with Han Solo (something I don't want to think of like that).

[KnightDisciple]

It's causing my brain to associate a hot girl (something I think is attractive) with Han Solo (something I don't want to think of like that)....Here, I'll help. Make your brain make the connection "Leia's nabbing some of Han's clothes to run around in". "Hot girl" and "Leia" shouldn't hurt your brain too much. :smalltongue:

[Dr.Epic]

...Here, I'll help. Make your brain make the connection "Leia's nabbing some of Han's clothes to run around in". "Hot girl" and "Leia" shouldn't hurt your brain too much. :smalltongue:

Don't try and use your soundproof logic on me.

[Morph Bark]

As a lover of parodies, I have some like for this. The downside? That geeks and gamers tend to be represented just a touch off from what I usually see (why is that Flash-dressed guy's costume's back open?).

[Tiger Duck]

I think it's because his costume is a kids pyjama and not really a costume.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

...:smallconfused:

Yeah, I've yet to see anything that tells me why that shouldn't be considered a reasonable conclusion anyways.:smallconfused:

He is Han Solo, think about it.

If: A) Han Solo is a "good guy"
B) Han Solo is an indefatigable sex machine.

It would be outright villainous of him not to sleep with ladies. Denial of his sweet lovin' is comparable to slow, torturous murder. [1] Thusly, monogamy cannot be in Han Solo's character.

1. Hardy, Ed. Love Kill Slowly. Tattoo parlor: some dude's skin, pretty old now.

[Pyrian]

Yeah, I've yet to see anything that tells me why that shouldn't be considered a reasonable conclusion anyways.:smallconfused:His last name, for starters. :smalltongue:

[Zeful]

B) Han Solo is an indefatigable sex machine.


And where in the movies, books, or any material is this backed up? Or is it one of those annoying fandom hero worship of the thing they'll never be?

[KnightDisciple]

He is Han Solo, think about it.

If: A) Han Solo is a "good guy"
B) Han Solo is an indefatigable sex machine.

It would be outright villainous of him not to sleep with ladies. Denial of his sweet lovin' is comparable to slow, torturous murder. [1] Thusly, monogamy cannot be in Han Solo's character.

1. Hardy, Ed. Love Kill Slowly. Tattoo parlor: some dude's skin, pretty old now.I...I'm sorry, but that's just a silly idea. If you really prefer it to what's actually happened in the universe, I guess that's your businss.

But it seems to be in extremely poor taste to suggest that this woman is unfaithful because of her costume choice (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9400542&postcount=81).

Yeah, sure, it's a "joke". But it's one in bad taste and no humor. *Shrugs*


His last name, for starters. :smalltongue:And yet, Han is not alone. He starts off the movie with Chewie at his side. He gains friends in the form of Luke and Leia, forming a romance with Leia. All just in the movies.

I'm pretty sure literary analysis of Star Wars (which has been done, because it's an awesome Hero Cycle example) would reveal that this is part of the growth that Han's archetype often undergoes. The "roguish loner" finding love and friendship, and no longer being alone (despite occasional weak protests to the contrary). If nothing else, there's solid, classical irony in a man with the last name of "Solo" having friends.


And where in the movies, books, or any material is this backed up? Or is it one of those annoying fandom hero worship of the thing they'll never be?Considering the rest of his post, yes, it's definitely fandom.

[Keld Denar]

Ok, so I get the whole "Han shot first" thing that's mentioned in the video and I've seen on t-shirts and on the intarwebz and whatnot, but where did it come from? I mean, it sounds like there should be a story or something more to it than just a bunch of nerds repeating it over and over in mantra. I know its about the scene in the Mos Eisle Cantina where Han shot Greedo under the table, but so what? Why the hype? Or is it just one of those unexplainable fan driven memes from the internet that subsists on its own perpetual motion machine?

Is there something there I'm missing? Or is it really as simple as that and its just an overhyped nerd mantra?

[Ignition]

It's overhyped nerd meme, just like everything else that goes on around here :smallwink:

Basically the problem is that George Lucas's "extended edition" was a massive waste of time, money, and energy, and that he, himself, is the biggest money-grubbing corporate whore who ever stepped in something so flawless as Star Wars.

Ultimately, it was about a quarter of a second of a two-hour movie, and doesn't matter in the grand scheme. But Star Wars is serious business. Cue overhype! :smallbiggrin:

[Morph Bark]

I think it's because his costume is a kids pyjama and not really a costume.

It is?

...why does a pyjama have such an opening in the back then? :smallconfused:

[Pyrian]

...this is part of the growth that Han's archetype often undergoes.The standard is that in the sequel(s) he should go through the exact same process with a new and different woman, past romances going largely unmentioned. :smallamused:

EDIT:
Ok, so I get the whole "Han shot first" thing that's mentioned in the video and I've seen on t-shirts and on the intarwebz and whatnot, but where did it come from?In the original release, Han shot Greedo without being shot at first. Then, they edited it to Greedo shooting first (and somehow missed). The argument is that (A) that doesn't make any sense and (B) it rips out a significant chunk of Han's character development. Eventually they edited it to them shooting simultaneously, which I suppose helps with (B) but still doesn't make any sense. Greedo couldn't really miss unless he was shot first (and in the original release he didn't shoot at all).

[KnightDisciple]

Ok, so I get the whole "Han shot first" thing that's mentioned in the video and I've seen on t-shirts and on the intarwebz and whatnot, but where did it come from? I mean, it sounds like there should be a story or something more to it than just a bunch of nerds repeating it over and over in mantra. I know its about the scene in the Mos Eisle Cantina where Han shot Greedo under the table, but so what? Why the hype? Or is it just one of those unexplainable fan driven memes from the internet that subsists on its own perpetual motion machine?

Is there something there I'm missing? Or is it really as simple as that and its just an overhyped nerd mantra?To give a slightly more specific answer.

Here's a wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_shot_first).

I think the argument has some weight from a semi-academic standpoint, when examining archetypes as they relate to Han Solo. He's supposed to be a very ambiguous character in the first movie, and the scene as originally shot conveys that rather well.

It's not "just nerd rage", though the level the complaint has been taken to got a bit ridiculous. Then again, I wouldn't mind a "Han shot first" shirt myself.:smallbiggrin:

[KnightDisciple]

The standard is that in the sequel(s) he should go through the exact same process with a new and different woman, past romances going largely unmentioned. :smallamused:I think we're thinking of different archetypes. Or maybe different examples. What you're describing isn't "growth", it's "stagnation".

The point being, there's no support for "Han left Leia when he got bored with her", and in fact the opposite is true. Lucasfilms has said that, so long as they don't actively contradict the movie, the books are canon. Despite certain issues that can cause, Han being faithful to Leia isn't an issue.

[Pyrian]

I think we're thinking of different archetypes. Or maybe different examples.I challenge you to name roguish movie characters who're transformed and remain faithful to their romantic partners in sequels.

I submit that this doesn't happen often enough to qualify as an "archetype" at all. Whereas, Bond/Indiana Jones etc., truly is a resounding archetype, and one in which Han fits into well enough that we would naturally expect him to follow it. A Star Wars sequel in which Han and Leia are not at least on the rocks seems... Almost unimaginable. They never got along, for perfectly valid reasons, and a little victory nookie just isn't a solid foundation for a relationship, and everybody should know it.


What you're describing isn't "growth", it's "stagnation".True, but people do not normally change if they can help it.

[KnightDisciple]

Indiana Jones married the gal from the first movie. :smalltongue:

As well, we see Han start to grow out of the "loner rogue" archetype even in the first movie. By the 3rd, he's leading the ground team for the Rebels. Just a bit of character growth, don't you think?

Offhand example would be Silk, from the Belgariad and Mallorean. He starts off the series as a definite womanizer, but by the end, he settles down.

Another might be Aladdin from the Disney movie; starts off flirting with lots of girls, but by the end is dedicated to just Jasmine.

Riker from TNG would count; a womanizer for the TV series, he settled down with Deanna in the end.

Haley and/or Elan from OotS might count, though I haven't read the Origin book, so it's harder to tell.

In the end, the problem is you seem to be trying to apply the Han we see in Episode 4 to everything that happens afterwards. But it's clear that by Episode 6, his character has notably changed. Enough that he and Leia eventually settling down (even though it took a few years of rocky courtship) is believable.


Of course, the whole point was that the "joke" about the gal dressed up as Han in the video clearly being so bad at commitment that she'll divorce her husband soon and be "available" is...Well, the more I reflect on it, the less the word "tacky" seems to cover it.:smallyuk:

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

I severely underestimated the number of people out to prove Han Solo's heteronormative moral fibre. I take back everything that was said, it was all my mistake. I was obviously thinking of a different Han Solo, not whatever one you guys are talking about, which is presumably the one this lady is dressed as.

[KnightDisciple]

I severely underestimated the number of people out to prove Han Solo's heteronormative moral fibre. I take back everything that was said, it was all my mistake. I was obviously thinking of a different Han Solo, not whatever one you guys are talking about, which is presumably the one this lady is dressed as.:smallconfused:

That was kind of my point to both of you. That between the films and the books, it becomes evident Han isn't some random womanizer. And that your "joke"...wasn't.

[Pyrian]

Dude, I could go point-for-point, but the summation is, I think you have WAAAAY too much emotional investment in this. :smallconfused:

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

I am sorry, I made that remark not intending it to be harshly measured against either the Star Wars canon or the Categorical Imperative, let alone both. In the future, I will make more socially appropriate jokes about how yucky the idea of being attracted to another man is, instead, I guess. That worked out far better for the person who made it than my own joke, er, "joke," did, so I suppose it is the route to follow. I did not intend to offend anyone, I really did not see this severe a reaction coming.

[Pyrian]

VeisuItaTyhjyys, it was funny. (Both of them, actually.) Don't worry about the over-reaction.

[KnightDisciple]

*Edit: Not worth it at all*

[Zeful]

VeisuItaTyhjyys, it was funny. (Both of them, actually.) Don't worry about the over-reaction.

The first was. But the second was crass and very much unfunny, especially given that it's largest underpinning is based on a character indulging in an adolescent male fantasy that has no basis within the character as portrayed.

[Pyrian]

But the second was crass and very much unfunny...I think it was funny because it was crass. :smallbiggrin:


...especially given that it's largest underpinning is based on a character indulging in an adolescent male fantasy that has no basis within the character as portrayed.See, when you guys talk about Star Wars characters like this, I can't help thinking I'm inadvertently discussing a religion. :smallamused:

[Ignition]

For the record, if Han Solo got Rule 64'd - "For Every Male Character, There Is Fanart/Fanfiction Of That Character Swapping To Being Female" - and was properly hot, I'd hit it. I haven't seen this video of the Fem!Han, but I've got very pleasent images in my head :smallwink:

Then again, I'm warped enough to find that Fem!Comedian (Comedienne?) - as in Watchmen - attractive, for the same reason I find Revy from Black Lagoon attractive.

I have weird tastes, what?

[Zeful]

See, when you guys talk about Star Wars characters like this, I can't help thinking I'm inadvertently discussing a religion. that you are compensating for your own inadequacies. :smallamused:

And here's my side of it.

[DeadManSleeping]

You should probably refrain from insulting Star Wars nerds on a forum dedicated to something as nerdy as gaming. There's probably at least one moderator who'd be offended.

Well, you should refrain from insulting anyone, but...you get my point.

I defend my not-having-got-the-joke based on Han's complete and utter devotion to Leia during the movies. He's like a puppy, really. Not that there were any other females around for him, which might be enough of an explanation.

So! Dancing nerd girls! Let's talk about those again.

[Joran]

So! Dancing nerd girls! Let's talk about those again.

I <3 the Baroness... Stupid glasses fetish.

BTW, I understand the love for Stan Lee, but nobody really mentions Jack Kirby, who drew all the characters that Stan Lee came up with... Could it be because Jack Kirby died in 1994 before the recent popularity of comic books? Or was he not as dynamic a figure?

[KnightDisciple]

I <3 the Baroness... Stupid glasses fetish.The glasses don't hurt the equation, that's for sure. That, and it's somehow more attractive that she's all covered up. >_>


BTW, I understand the love for Stan Lee, but nobody really mentions Jack Kirby, who drew all the characters that Stan Lee came up with... Could it be because Jack Kirby died in 1994 before the recent popularity of comic books? Or was he not as dynamic a figure?Probably a combo of Kirby having passed away, and Stan being a more dynamic figure. I mean, Stan's been making cameos in movies, he's been hosting TV shows, going to conventions...He's keeping himself in the public eye.

Don't know if Kirby was more reserved or whatnot; not a comic industry historian. But we can't really compare them now.:smallsigh:

[Pyrian]

...you are compensating for your own inadequacies.I think that's funny, too. :smallcool: Of course, my shortcomings as an indefatigable sex machine are well documented.


...you get my point.I suppose. But I truly believe that it is inappropriate to elevate such fiction into the realm of "Things Thou Shalt Not Poke Fun At".

[Dr.Epic]

As a lover of parodies, I have some like for this. The downside? That geeks and gamers tend to be represented just a touch off from what I usually see (why is that Flash-dressed guy's costume's back open?).

I had a hard time realizing that was Legolas until it was said in the lyrics.

[Knaight]

BTW, I understand the love for Stan Lee, but nobody really mentions Jack Kirby, who drew all the characters that Stan Lee came up with... Could it be because Jack Kirby died in 1994 before the recent popularity of comic books? Or was he not as dynamic a figure?

I routinely see Jack Kirby listed as an artistic genius online, he certainly seems to have some reputation.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

The first was. But the second was crass and very much unfunny, especially given that it's largest underpinning is based on a character indulging in an adolescent male fantasy that has no basis within the character as portrayed.

It's almost as if the joke was making fun of the very of idea you lambaste. I mean, I cited an Ed Hardy tattoo design as a source of Han Solo's promiscuity. I don't know how much more clear I could have made it that the interpretation of the character given was not alltogether serious, I suppose quite a bit, but I'm sorry that it wasn't more clear.

EDIT: I feel like Stan Lee is more of a celebrity, since his name is in bigger letters and he's a more prominent talking head in the issues of older comics, he makes cameos in the new movies, etc. Among comic enthusiasts, though, at least the ones I know, I feel Kirby's reputation is really solid.

[Zeful]

I think that's funny, too. :smallcool: Of course, my shortcomings as an indefatigable sex machine are well documented.

I suppose. But I truly believe that it is inappropriate to elevate such fiction into the realm of "Things Thou Shalt Not Poke Fun At".Poking fun at fiction is fine, and I agree with that, but that's not what it looked like.


It's almost as if the joke was making fun of the very of idea you lambaste. I mean, I cited an Ed Hardy tattoo design as a source of Han Solo's promiscuity. I don't know how much more clear I could have made it that the interpretation of the character given was not alltogether serious, I suppose quite a bit, but I'm sorry that it wasn't more clear.
Sarcasm is very hard to detect on the internet so unless you have someway of denoting such (I'm a fan of [/Sarcasm] personally) please don't make jokes that would otherwise require us being in the room with you (sarcasm is mostly tonal), and I missed the mention of the tattoo.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

Yeah, I guess that little citation at the bottom isn't exactly noteable. Haha, you know you've been in academia too long when you assume people will read citations carefully enough to get jokes in them. I feel the "sarcasm on the internet," conundrum is an overrated one. Irony can definitely be conveyed textually.