Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Welcome Guest!

Join us now to get access to all our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, and so, so much more. It's also quick and totally free, so what are you waiting for?

Recommended Posts

Right! Because it has story. I fully admit that I don't care for 40K, but I think assuming there is no 40K movie simply because liberal Hollywood would ruin it is ridiculous.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sharkbelly said:

'm going to suggest that there are many other much more important reasons for not having a 40K movie. 40K is boring, for one...

Lol. :)

Just relating an old story. I get that it's GW's fictional universe and they can change it at the drop of a hat.

My story was less about the highly specific instance of a PC influence over a 40K movie, and more about how organizations or groups seemingly want to push an agenda where it's not in need of pushing.

i suppose I'm in group c in the nice long post above. Perhaps not 100 % or exclusively, but it comes closet for the discussion at hand.

There are plenty of ways, even (especially) in a fictional setting to highlight a positive and inclusive message without jettisoning established ideas and "history."

Actually, it would not surprise me one bit if the folks at GW had a thought like this early on in creating Stormcast - "Hmm, folks have complained about a lack of female Space Marines for decades. We can't undo 30 years of established canon, of course, we're not Marvel or LucasArts after all, but we absolutely can have strong, powerful, respectable women in the ranks of these new armored super soldiers. Let's do!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ar-Pharazôn said:

Off topic, but while a 40K movie would be bland, the Horus Heresy is ripe for a film franchise. 

Agree to disagree, personally dislike space marines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sharkbelly said:

Right! Because it has story. I fully admit that I don't care for 40K, but I think assuming there is no 40K movie simply because liberal Hollywood would ruin it is ridiculous.

Never said that. Didn't. Nope.

I related a story about a thought as to what might happen to an established IP in the hands of a company with different goals.

It's less about the specific instance and more about general concerns. Illustrative. I get that it's hard to convey that properly in forums.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't wait for more female models in armies. Gimmie some female rotbringers!

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Actually, it would not surprise me one bit if the folks at GW had a thought like this early on in creating Stormcast - "Hmm, folks have complained about a lack of female Space Marines for decades. We can't undo 30 years of established canon, of course, we're not Marvel or LucasArts after all, but we absolutely can have strong, powerful, respectable women in the ranks of these new armored super soldiers. Let's do!"

 

Well it always surprised me the initial releases didn't have any female stormcast. Also quite a few of the armies don't have female characters or troops at all. Gw is a bit slow on the uptake.

As for 40k, it makes sense not to with space marines since they are essentially clones to some degree. That's ok. It doesn't have to be everything. But it doesn't make a lot of sense for some of the other armies to not have female troop models, esp like imperial guard.

Edited by Riavan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Riavan said:

Well it always surprised me the initial releases didn't have any female stormcast. Also quite a few of the armies don't have female characters or troops at all. Gw is a bit slow on the uptake.

As for 40k, it makes sense not to with space marines since they are essentially clones to some degree. That's ok. It doesn't have to be everything. But it doesn't make a lot of sense for some of the other armies to not have female troop models, esp like imperial guard.

Most things WFB are well based in old medieval fashion of no women when there were men who could serve.

Dwarfs are pretty much all male.

Elves had the long hair component that you could probably disguise them in normal service no problem.

Dryads and wood Elves were females not in disguise. The Treeman has high-heels.

Greenskins are nonbinary. So there’s that.

There were Amazons (never made into an official army though).

Ask a Lizardman (spawning pool).

Chaos has its daemonettes.

Skaven have some sort of birthmother weirdstuff.

And of course, there are female Stormcast.

GW doesn’t have a diversity problem. Or some kind of sexism problem. Even if extreme feminists would say so. 

But then again, those same extremists won’t be happy until there are nothing but female figures and no male ones.

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is this with this whole SJW, feminist, leftist talk that I read here? @SuperHappyTime I don't think anybody wants to abolish male figures at all. We are just talking about more diversity, which could be added to the figures. I don't think this is hurting anyone. I don't think anyone wants the old models to be removed. Nobody wants to replace every male model with a female model. We are just talking about how the hobby could be more enjoyable for a group, which didn't have access to it before. Nobody wants to force anything on people playing the hobby.

I see many assumptions and prejudices about people in some comments just because they mentioned that you could maybe include more female models or more representation, so that maybe little girls also have figures to identify with. We are not talking about the abolishment of the whole hobby.

I wouldn't have thought that such a small thing like the underrepresentation of female players or female models could be such a huge thing for some people.

I don't think that you do a favor to those people by calling them SJWs, feminists or leftists and stigmatizing them. In my opinion these wishes to include more diversity into a hobby cannot be considered a political agenda. I have never thought including new people or making a hobby more accesible to a certain group could be considered such a big thing for some people.

I am all in for a sensible discussion, but please be careful with words like SJW, feminist or leftist, because more than often these words are very undifferantiated and consist of many assumptions and stereotypes about a certain group of people, which in the end often don't turn out to be true. I don't think using such words contributes anything to the discussion. In my opinion they are more than often "battle terms" which are used to discredit the perspective of the other side. I never understood why some people treat discussions like battles where one side looses and the other side wins. If you debate and discuss in a sensible and open-minded way there will be only winners in the end.

I never understood these 'discussion duels'. Discussions shouldn't be a battle, but instead an exchange of thoughts and a learning experience.

Edited by Infeston
  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SuperHappyTime said:

But then again, those same extremists won’t be happy until there are nothing but female figures and no male ones.

Where are these extremists? When did they say this? Certainly nobody said that in this thread- you appear to be wholly unnecessarily conjuring a daemon for yourself to fight.

I also adore your citing of Skaven females (who are used as nothing except breeding machines!) as proof that GW does not have a sexism problem. Or Amazons, who never existed in models in any meaningful form outside of Blood Bowl. And you can call greenskins non-binary all you like (technically they're all fungus I guess), but they call themselves "lads" and "boys" and are always referred to as "he", so... I don't know who you're trying to kid there.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SuperHappyTime said:

In the US, it used to mean happy (circa 60s). See The Flintstones end credits song.

This isn’t going anywhere without talking about SJWs. To put it bluntly, GW has done a very good job of NOT being SJW and that’s a good thing. The hallmarks of SJW writing can be seen in today’s Marvel Comics. I’m not going to discuss it, it’s a long list of left wing political tropes that appear in every single comic.

Ahh the marvel comics conspiracy

I suspect there is as much proof of that as there is the story about the space marines movie told on the previous page

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fimir had the Meargh, though beyond that they really were the worst concept of any to introduce any female into the game, or males, quite dark really. 

Cool minis and mostly good back story though....

Edited by Kronos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GW are probably never going to do a movie. That isn't because Hollywood liberals would turn Marneus Calgar into a girl or whatever though; the way the movie industry works means you don't just shop your license to a studio (realistically, several companies) so they can make the film, you also have to negotiate your licensing with everyone else involved in marketing it, selling tie-in products, distributing it, etc. GW's working relationship with New Line wasn't a terrific experience from what I understand, and that was simple by comparison. They don't want to get tangled up in it, basically. They guard their IP carefully, and licencing a movie isn't a great idea from that perspective. There are a number of bigger and better explainations of this out there on the web, and I think at least one of the podcasts touched on it, but that's the basics. It's really nothing to do with diversity at all.
 

2 hours ago, SuperHappyTime said:

But then again, those same extremists won’t be happy until there are nothing but female figures and no male ones.

Instead of just presenting wild assertions as though they referred to matters of common knowlege, you might consider substantiating them in some way. Who are these "extremists"? Has anyone ever actually expressed a wish to see this happen? It kinda has the faintest ring of what we'd call a "troggoth" these days if you just pitch something sensational like this.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Urauloth said:

GW are probably never going to do a movie. That isn't because Hollywood liberals would turn Marneus Calgar into a girl or whatever though; the way the movie industry works means you don't just shop your license to a studio (realistically, several companies) so they can make the film, you also have to negotiate your licensing with everyone else involved in marketing it, selling tie-in products, distributing it, etc. GW's working relationship with New Line wasn't a terrific experience from what I understand, and that was simple by comparison. They don't want to get tangled up in it, basically. They guard their IP carefully, and licencing a movie isn't a great idea from that perspective. There are a number of bigger and better explainations of this out there on the web, and I think at least one of the podcasts touched on it, but that's the basics. It's really nothing to do with diversity at all.

 

They actually did do a movie, already but it was not exactly great -  the Ultramarines CG/animated movie they made.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1679332/?ref_=nv_sr_1

I think it was testing the waters, really:  see if there was a market for it, how the IP would translate into a 90-minute film etc... Had lots of great talent behind it - Dan Abnet writing, Sean Pertwee, Terence Stamp and Jon Hurt providing voices - it just didn't really work very well.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+++ Mod Hat On +++

Folks, thanks for participating in this topic and keeping it mostly civil but I just need to poke you all now because

  1. The topic is floundering around all over the place at the moment
  2. We don't seem to be discussing much Age of Sigmar

Cheers

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Urauloth said:

Instead of just presenting wild assertions as though they referred to matters of common knowlege, you might consider substantiating them in some way. Who are these "extremists"? 

You only have to look at the Facebook group Feminist 40k to see examples of extremism in our hobby. I'm not stating that everyone who is part of that group is an extremist, but you look at some of the stuff that gets posted on 4chan, spikeybits, etc in the form of screenshots from the group and you can see they hold some views that many would disagree with. Views which for some would be damaging to the hobby in general.

Someone mentioned Marvel, I don't read comics but I see the headlines about female Thor and black Iron Man and it's no surprise people are upset. Character's they have been invested in for a long, long time are suddenly radically changed in the name of diversity. It comes across as the company saying to their long term audience "this isn't for you anymore".

Now I don't think that is what is happening with GW or this Becca Scott video. However it is perfectly natural having seen what has happened elsewhere to worry the same kind of social justice thinking could assail a hobby you're passionate about.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SuperHappyTime said:

Most things WFB are well based in old medieval fashion of no women when there were men who could serve.

Dwarfs are pretty much all male.

Elves had the long hair component that you could probably disguise them in normal service no problem.

Dryads and wood Elves were females not in disguise. The Treeman has high-heels.

Greenskins are nonbinary. So there’s that.

There were Amazons (never made into an official army though).

Ask a Lizardman (spawning pool).

Chaos has its daemonettes.

Skaven have some sort of birthmother weirdstuff.

And of course, there are female Stormcast.

GW doesn’t have a diversity problem. Or some kind of sexism problem. Even if extreme feminists would say so. 

But then again, those same extremists won’t be happy until there are nothing but female figures and no male ones.

I would prefer mixed armies rather than specific female armies that just limits choice - and model diversity is always better. Also other than neave, this is the first release of female stormcast.

Most board games have a solid mix of characters and enemies. 

Saying "oh there's sisters of battle" as a singular army choice against ten others is kind of embarrassing tbh. Listing off reasons for 90% of armies not having female characters is embarrassing.

I don't think we are anywhere near the point of extremism, games workshops has just been very very slow to add any level of diversity.  There's a level you can get to before you go full Disney (marvel) lol. It's not two levels, the current or the extreme.

Edited by Riavan
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SuperHappyTime said:

Most things WFB are well based in old medieval fashion of no women when there were men who could serve.

Dwarfs are pretty much all male.

Elves had the long hair component that you could probably disguise them in normal service no problem.

Dryads and wood Elves were females not in disguise. The Treeman has high-heels.

Greenskins are nonbinary. So there’s that.

There were Amazons (never made into an official army though).

Ask a Lizardman (spawning pool).

Chaos has its daemonettes.

Skaven have some sort of birthmother weirdstuff.

And of course, there are female Stormcast.

GW doesn’t have a diversity problem. Or some kind of sexism problem. Even if extreme feminists would say so. 

But then again, those same extremists won’t be happy until there are nothing but female figures and no male ones.

The issue with saying that we don't have female models because it's based in medieval times is that the vast majority of races in Fantasy are, well, fantasy - there's no reason why there can't be a 50/50 split with them. Elves tend to be pretty inclusive, but many other armies aren't (the parts of Skaven that fight, most of Slaves to Darkness (who are pretty much mutants), free peoples, dwarves in general (unless I just can't tell the difference), beastmen, all of destruction etc.). From a hobbying standpoint alone, I think more diversity in troops would be appreciated; sure, you don't have to diversify all of the armies, but is anyone really going to be upset if the next free people's release has a few female infantry? I can assure you now that, after painting 60 daemonettes, I would like more variety in their sculpts - if that means more masculine forms then that's fine.

There are very few, if any, 'extremist feminists' trying to exterminate all male models from Warhammer. Everyone I've seen would just like a little more diversity - diversity also meaning not all female :)

But as others have recommended, this will be my last post on the matter unless I really need to say something as many people don't enjoy politcal discussion on the internet (and I don't blame them) and this runs the risk of becoming toxic (though it's been really good so far). 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gaz Taylor said:

+++ Mod Hat On +++

Folks, thanks for participating in this topic and keeping it mostly civil but I just need to poke you all now because

  1. The topic is floundering around all over the place at the moment
  2. We don't seem to be discussing much Age of Sigmar

Cheers

Great discussion, mostly very polite. Cleary a range of views that are not going to be reconciled here or today, time to shut it down for now?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Urauloth said:

Yeah, mostly agree on this. I used to moderate a Wizards of the Coast forum and yikes, the horror stories from those days. I don't think GW will do anything critical of any of its customers, for a variety of reasons, but it would certainly be dangerous if they did. A positive attitude and broad appeal seem to be central to GW's approach right now though, so I don't think we have any worries there.

For the record, the relative lack of venom and political conflict here is one reason TGA is my forum of choice - I genuinely do like to be able to discuss painting, modelling, lore and gaming in as apolitical an environment as possible.

GW need to take the High Road of "hey, it would be great if we had more customers" and stick to it. Going negative usually creates a negative reaction, it almost always does more harm than good as we have seen a number of times.  The long game is to just appeal to a wide audience and let the customer base grow, I presume (but do not know) that the store managers get some sort of guidance on managing issues that might arise from that change (as they do from absolutely any change).

I have been rather surprised that we have such a long and in-depth discussion of the non-issue of the GW marketing department picking a presenter with a track record of explaining games to explain their game.  It's not like they went and sacked their previous presenters, the build and paint videos are still presented by our familiar favourites. It there is anything distinctly unrepresentative about the set of presenters it is that they are all universally presentable unlike the typical set of gamers we might see in a store but that is hardly surprising in promotional videos; literally every company in the world does that.

I have been pleasantly surprised at the tone of the conversation, TGA showing why it is such a good forum. I am just slightly bemused that there is a conversation at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tokek said:

I am just slightly bemused that there is a conversation at all.

Well, that's the baffling thing, isn't it? Why is a woman presenting a "how to play" video series for a tabletop game even remotely worth talking about? Answer: because "diversity" is a terrifying word to some people.

  • Like 6
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only person who thought she's got a really annoying voice?

I couldn't even get all the way through the video!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Riavan said:

Saying "oh there's sisters of battle" as a singular army choice against ten others is kind of embarrassing tbh. Listing off reasons for 90% of armies not having female characters is embarrassing.

I mostly agree with what you want to convey with the post but this sentence is flat out wrong, at least when it comes to W40K.

It's not just Sisters of Battle - although yes they are one 90% female army. Eldar, Dark Eldar, Harlequins, Tau, Deamons of Chaos all include both male and female sculpts(so there are at least 6 choices for armies with #represent) and that is not even touching on the fact that a lot of armies are gender nonconforming(aka Necrons, Tyranids, Adeptus Mechanicus, Orks if you look into the lore really hard).

There are like 2 armies that don't have females for lore reasons - space marines and imperial guard. The oversaturation of the game with space marine chapters is a separate topic.

I think the sentiment is much more justified when it comes to AOS. W40k is pretty diverse as it is.

 

Edited by acadmo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, AdamR said:

Am I the only person who thought she's got a really annoying voice?

I couldn't even get all the way through the video!

Once you get used to the American accent I didn't find it too bad - I did find the background music a bit distracting though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, acadmo said:

There are like 2 armies that don't have females for lore reasons - space marines and imperial guard. The oversaturation of the game with space marine chapters is a separate topic.

Actually only Space Marines/Chaos Space Marines have no female members. Imperial Guard had female members in the First and only Tanith Regiment,  Colonel Schaeffers Last Chancers has female members and there was a blister with a female catachan with Granade Launcher.

Edited by EMMachine
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×