Moments when a piece of entertainment completely lost you.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Thu Mar 29, 2018 6:59 pm

Hm. They might be able to stick her with third degree burglary, but I have no idea what crime the prosecutor would argue that her breaking and entering was made with the intent of. I was under the impression privacy laws were usually a civil matter, and if so, then breaking and entering with the intent to spy on someone isn't burglary, it's just trespassing. That's kind of weird. The most obvious I can think of would be something like 'unauthorized use of a computer,' because if you're there to spy on someone you'll have a hard time convincing the jury you absolutely wouldn't have touched any electronic devices. "Sure, I was breaking the law, but strictly misdemeanors - honest!"

Zaranthan · Post by **Zaranthan** » Thu Mar 29, 2018 7:51 pm

DSMatticus wrote:Hm. They might be able to stick her with third degree burglary, but I have no idea what crime the prosecutor would argue that her breaking and entering was made with the intent of. I was under the impression privacy laws were usually a civil matter, and if so, then breaking and entering with the intent to spy on someone isn't burglary, it's just trespassing. That's kind of weird. The most obvious I can think of would be something like 'unauthorized use of a computer,' because if you're there to spy on someone you'll have a hard time convincing the jury you absolutely wouldn't have touched any electronic devices. "Sure, I was breaking the law, but strictly misdemeanors - honest!"

That won't stick, either. UUoaC isn't a felony.

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/156.05

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Mar 29, 2018 7:56 pm

You're actually allowed to enter another property without it being trespassing if you think there's an emergency going on.

Legal Dictionary wrote:A person is not guilty of trespass if he goes onto another's land to protect life or property during an emergency. For example, a passerby who sees someone pointing a gun at another person may cross onto the property and subdue the person with the gun. Someone at the scene of a traffic accident may go onto private property to pull a victim from one of the vehicles.

Really, all Jessica Jones has to do is to claim that she had reason to believe the dangerous criminal with a gun was going to do something dangerous and criminal with the gun and that she entered the property because she has super powers and felt that she was likely to be able to stop it. At that point, her actions aren't even trespassing, and her self defense case is reasonably air tight.

-Username17

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Thu Mar 29, 2018 8:34 pm

Zaranthan wrote:
DSMatticus wrote:Hm. They might be able to stick her with third degree burglary, but I have no idea what crime the prosecutor would argue that her breaking and entering was made with the intent of. I was under the impression privacy laws were usually a civil matter, and if so, then breaking and entering with the intent to spy on someone isn't burglary, it's just trespassing. That's kind of weird. The most obvious I can think of would be something like 'unauthorized use of a computer,' because if you're there to spy on someone you'll have a hard time convincing the jury you absolutely wouldn't have touched any electronic devices. "Sure, I was breaking the law, but strictly misdemeanors - honest!"
That won't stick, either. UUoaC isn't a felony.

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/156.05

Doesn't have to be, barring some case law I'm unfamiliar with - it's burglary in the third degree if your intent is to commit a crime, not to commit a felony.

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/140.20

FrankTrollman wrote:You're actually allowed to enter another property without it being trespassing if you think there's an emergency going on.

Legal Dictionary wrote:A person is not guilty of trespass if he goes onto another's land to protect life or property during an emergency. For example, a passerby who sees someone pointing a gun at another person may cross onto the property and subdue the person with the gun. Someone at the scene of a traffic accident may go onto private property to pull a victim from one of the vehicles.
Really, all Jessica Jones has to do is to claim that she had reason to believe the dangerous criminal with a gun was going to do something dangerous and criminal with the gun and that she entered the property because she has super powers and felt that she was likely to be able to stop it. At that point, her actions aren't even trespassing, and her self defense case is reasonably air tight.

-Username17

She'd never get away with that in a million years. What do you think she is, a cop?

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Thu Mar 29, 2018 9:43 pm

There are a ton of complications in the specific case of Jessica Jones trying to defend herself from a murder accusation in court, because it's known she has powers, and people in the MCU are still mistrustful of powered individuals who aren't Captain America or Thor (Falcon and Iron Man don't count because they use tech, Hawkeye and Black Widow don't count because people don't consider them powered). It's also public knowledge that she has killed before. Granted, it seems that killing Kilgrave was basically ruled justifiable, but it would likely still be on the jurors' minds.

But in her specific case, she could also (attempt to) bring in testimony from people who knew the guy and told her about the thing she was investigating, possibly get past clients to testify as character witnesses (I understand these are pretty weak in court, but it's a tool), and if the story went that way, she could have Matt Murdock represent her, most likely.

MisterDee · Post by **MisterDee** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:27 am

Prak wrote:she could have Matt Murdock represent her, most likely.

That would be an infinitely preferable storyline to more shitty martial arts storyline bullshit.

Honestly, I'm half of a mind to pitch a Hogarth - Lawyer for Superheroes pilot to Marvel.

Stahlseele · Post by **Stahlseele** » Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:16 pm

Well, Both Matt Mudrock and Jennifer Walters are available at least.
I think there are a few more like them, but i am not sure actually <.<

They could start employing people like Charles Xavier as mind readers.
Read the accused mind, broadcast to the jury, have them judge on that.

angelfromanotherpin · Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:28 pm

There was a point in JJs2 where I was half-convinced they were going to turn Hogarth into She-Hulk.

nockermensch · Post by **nockermensch** » Mon Apr 02, 2018 6:38 pm

Ready Player One, the movie.

TL;DR: wtf I hate the 80s now.

For the Win is about the same themes, only it's a good book.

erik · Post by **erik** » Mon Apr 02, 2018 8:52 pm

On recommendation I downloaded the Ready Player One audiobook (read by Wil Wheaton) for some long driving this last week. Got maybe a couple hours left of 15 and it feels like hatefucking to finish it but by ghost I will see it through just so I can get my haterade on properly later.

Sorry for doubting you Josh. Your rant made me wary and avoid it for a long time but other pressures won out. To my detriment.

Also. Probably not an ideal audio book for the 7-9 year olds to listen to. Lots of immature cussing unlike my distinguished fucking patter. I don’t mind my kids hearing dirty words. But it was lame. Oh and the intro where he rants about no easter bunny, Santa, or Jesus wasn’t my wife’s favorite part to have blasted on easter weekend, but I got a giggle out of it.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:12 am

I mistyped and accidentally had a free die roller app attempt to roll 1d0. It crashed so hard.

Iduno · Post by **Iduno** » Tue Apr 03, 2018 12:46 pm

angelfromanotherpin wrote:I mistyped and accidentally had a free die roller app attempt to roll 1d0. It crashed so hard.

They didn't test with 10? That's a real die. Try negative numbers, zero, and decimals.

Stahlseele · Post by **Stahlseele** » Tue Apr 03, 2018 12:48 pm

he did.
he tried to roll one d 0.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:37 am

I know I'm like a decade late to the party, but man, Scott Pilgrim is a distractingly garbage human being and it is downright bizarre how the movie plays it off as affable dorkiness. He's a 22-year-old man dating a sheltered 17-year-old girl because she's easily impressed and he likes the self-esteem boost. Breakups are hard, so he just doesn't do them. He's a bitch to Ramona because dying her hair and having exes means she's 'fickle' a slut he's afraid she's a slut and will abandon him.

The movie's visually and stylistically fun, but it also makes my skin crawl. I don't know if it's trying to be a redemption story that fails really hard or if it's downplaying the shittiness of how Pilgrim handles his own insecurities in order to make him relatable to insecure young men without becoming an indictment of them? The ending is also a painfully obvious reshoot. They were clearly going to end it with him riding off into the sunset with the infatuated 17-year-old until some executive forced them to change it either because it was too creepy, or because it made the whole movie pointless.

I dunno. Maybe it just hasn't aged well, now that we live in a world where reddit has had to ban communities of insecure young men for becoming rape advocacy centers. Playing off the way Pilgrim mistreats apparently all of the women in his life as a quirky character flaw instead of a damning one just doesn't sit right with me.

SlyJohnny · Post by **SlyJohnny** » Wed Apr 18, 2018 7:30 am

The books made it very clear that Scott Pilgrim is a selfish jerk who's coasted along by having better friends than he deserves, and utilizing the fact that he has some degree of natural charm in order to not have to grow up. Kim is relentlessly hostile towards him because she "gets" him. Ramona is also garbage, in many of the same ways as him, and his relationship with her (and the way he reacts so negatively to being treated in the same way he's always treated other people) ultimately results in him acquiring some self-knowledge.

The movie changed the plot to be a more traditional "nerdy hero gets the girl of his dreams" arc, even though the entire point of one of the books was establishing that this narrative Scott tells about himself is a lie and a false memory, and Kim's ex Simon Lee that he "rescued" her from actually wasn't a crazy 7 foot tall guy with lasers etc, he was just someone that Scott screwed over after he saw him hugging Kim and was consumed with irrational jealousy.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Wed Apr 18, 2018 7:38 am

From what I understand Scott is actually 'worse' in the source material.

erik · Post by **erik** » Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:08 am

I think the reshoot of the ending was due to the reactions at the test screening where the audience greatly preferred he end with Ramona than Knives. Here's that ending.

I dunno. I still like Scott Pilgrim vs. The World and I even introduced my kids to it.

Edit: I guess I’m weird but I never made the fickle=slut connection. I didn’t feel like there was any slut-shaming. I thought a big part of the movie was him learning that he wasn’t respectful towards other people and that he should correct himself.

violence in the media · Wed Apr 18, 2018 11:28 am

DSMatticus wrote:I know I'm like a decade late to the party, but man, Scott Pilgrim is a distractingly garbage human being and it is downright bizarre how the movie plays it off as affable dorkiness. He's a 22-year-old man dating a sheltered 17-year-old girl because she's easily impressed and he likes the self-esteem boost. Breakups are hard, so he just doesn't do them. He's a bitch to Ramona because dying her hair and having exes means she's 'fickle' a slut he's afraid she's a slut and will abandon him.

The movie's visually and stylistically fun, but it also makes my skin crawl. I don't know if it's trying to be a redemption story that fails really hard or if it's downplaying the shittiness of how Pilgrim handles his own insecurities in order to make him relatable to insecure young men without becoming an indictment of them? The ending is also a painfully obvious reshoot. They were clearly going to end it with him riding off into the sunset with the infatuated 17-year-old until some executive forced them to change it either because it was too creepy, or because it made the whole movie pointless.

I dunno. Maybe it just hasn't aged well, now that we live in a world where reddit has had to ban communities of insecure young men for becoming rape advocacy centers. Playing off the way Pilgrim mistreats apparently all of the women in his life as a quirky character flaw instead of a damning one just doesn't sit right with me.

I just watched this movie for the first time a few days ago, and thank you for putting into words exactly what was cringey and uncomfortable about it.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:25 am

erik wrote:Edit: I guess I’m weird but I never made the fickle=slut connection. I didn’t feel like there was any slut-shaming. I thought a big part of the movie was him learning that he wasn’t respectful towards other people and that he should correct himself.

The main conflict between Pilgrim and Ramona is that Pilgrim is afraid Ramona doesn't have the ability to commit. This starts because Ramona dyes her hair, which presents the conflict to the viewer as sitcom-esque comically overblown dysfunction and nothing particularly sinister - but as the evil exes thing heats up, that narrative thread stays open and leads to Pilgrim and Ramona arguing about her exes. I think there's a line that is almost verbatim "am I just going to end up another evil ex then?" and it's not actually prompted by anything. Ramona hasn't done anything to him, Pilgrim's just being an ass to her because the whole fiasco makes him feel insecure.

And the 'redemption' that happens at the end... isn't? Most of Pilgrim's shittiness is never really addressed. He's using Knives because she's ridiculously gullible and impressing her makes him feel better about himself... and nothing happens with that. It's just there, unmentioned, waiting for you to notice it. The ending even presents itself as though there's a legitimate relationship Pilgrim could go back to if he so chooses (because that is the original ending), instead of an exploitative trainwreck he needs to apologize for.

It's like the film just does not understand how big of a douchebag its protagonist actually is, so it pats him on the back and declares him redeemed after he maybe becomes marginally less of a douchebag... and then invites him to choose one of the two women he's been a complete ass to as a reward.

SlyJohnny · Post by **SlyJohnny** » Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:33 am

DSMatticus wrote:And the 'redemption' that happens at the end... isn't? Most of Pilgrim's shittiness is never really addressed. He's using Knives because she's ridiculously gullible and impressing her makes him feel better about himself... and nothing happens with that. It's just there, unmentioned, waiting for you to notice it. The ending even presents itself as though there's a legitimate relationship Pilgrim could go back to if he so chooses (because that is the original ending), instead of an exploitative trainwreck he needs to apologize for.

Yuppp. The books handled it SO much better... https://m.imgur.com/t/funny/DQC0X

erik · Post by **erik** » Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:00 pm

Ghost dammit. You made me waste an hour before going to work. Be more careful with imgur.

SlyJohnny · Post by **SlyJohnny** » Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:07 pm

erik wrote:Ghost dammit. You made me waste an hour before going to work. Be more careful with imgur.

Hahaha, there's only like six images there I was wanting people to see!

Or did you start reading through all the comments/get trapped in a wikiweb type situation?

erik · Post by **erik** » Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:23 pm

SlyJohnny wrote:
erik wrote:Ghost dammit. You made me waste an hour before going to work. Be more careful with imgur.
Hahaha, there's only like six images there I was wanting people to see!

Or did you start reading through all the comments/get trapped in a wikiweb type situation?

Yeah, I saw something else and fell victim to the irresistible gravitational pull of funny gifs, scrolling down and down for about an hour.

Darth Rabbitt · Post by **Darth Rabbitt** » Fri Apr 20, 2018 3:06 am

Having played/read/watched all three, the Scott Pilgrim video game was better than either the books or the movie, mostly because it just played up the video game silliness instead of focusing on the fucked-up character relationships.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Fri Apr 20, 2018 5:50 am

DSMatticus wrote:
erik wrote:Edit: I guess I’m weird but I never made the fickle=slut connection. I didn’t feel like there was any slut-shaming. I thought a big part of the movie was him learning that he wasn’t respectful towards other people and that he should correct himself.
The main conflict between Pilgrim and Ramona is that Pilgrim is afraid Ramona doesn't have the ability to commit.

Having commitment issues does not make one a slut. The two are completely orthogonal to each other. One can have an infinitely long string of exes while remaining a virgin. One can absolutely love sex and have it 18 hours a day while being in a committed monogamous relationship.

Personally, I've only seen the movie, never had any interest in the books or the games. I thought it was a fun diversion, but didn't really impress me.