she/her | 29
Hi! You can call me Skadi! I like bright things, sharp teeth, robots, paramedics from the 70s, and sad cold Bois on doomed Arctic voyages. I write things sometimes.
okay but do you understand that liz wallace made the bechdel-WALLACE test because she was a dyke who wanted to go to movies and pretend the characters were dykes and her friend alison bechdel happened to put her silly little litmus assessment into a comic strip and then the rest of everyone else decided it was a bona fide way of means testing media for Feminist Content? do you know that? it doesn’t sound like you know that
some of you are the dumbest motherfuckers alive
i am going to explain the bechdel test for people such as those in the tags
here is the original comic strip:
what the bechdel-wallace test is not:
an academic analysis of media
a bar that determines whether or not a movie is “bad” or “good” (by which i mean if a movie doesn’t pass the bechdel-wallace test that doesn’t make it bad, and if a movie passes the test the movie is not automatically good)
supposed to be taken seriously
what the bechdel-wallace test is:
a personal litmus test created by a lesbian who was, presumably, frustrated with the fact that women could not exist in the movie without a relationship to a man
it is not a way to “police what women speak about” because it does not apply to real people. it applies to fictional characters. also, the bechdel-wallace test does not stipulate that there can be no conversation about a male love interest. the women just have to talk about something other than a male love interest.
the reason the male love interest stipulation is there is because like… this test was created by a butch lesbian woman to determine whether or not she wanted to watch a movie. removing that part of the test violates the spirit of the test. it’s silly because it’s not supposed to be serious.
tl;dr stop misinterpreting the bechdel-wallace test you losers. op is right. goodbye
Feels weird to be sharing my own work instead of just reblogging other people but I made these
ID: A clay plate and a clay cup side by side. They are both off-white and decorated with strawberries of various sizes and shades. The cup’s inner side is red. End ID
ok I got into an argument with someone in my media class yesterday so I’m just gonna say it:
No video game should cost $70.
I’m sure the new Zelda game will be great, but no video game should cost $70. “But if you adjust for inflation, this is actually less than what the Wii games were,” cool. No video game should cost $70.
We no longer live in a world where a kid could save up their allowance for a couple months and then be able to buy a video game. Just buying one has somehow turned into such a grandiose adventure it takes all of the fun out of getting a new game.
The only possible benefit might be that, with games being so expensive, people might be more likely to pick up an indie game because those companies can’t afford to sell those games for a lot.
This is becoming normal. I used to be able to buy four ds games for $70. What the hell.
And you know damn well that Nintendo can afford it.
By the way, a 70 USD game means that it’ll convert to incredibly absurd prices on countries with poorer economies.
A lot of games get released on their basic editions for 300 BRL. Deluxe editions can cost up to 500 BRL. That’s the price of a very cheap phone, that’s part of someone’s rent, that’s half a month worth of groceries… the list is endless.
On top of that, a lot of studios now think it’s appropriate to hide the game’s true ending behind DLCs (looking at you, Dragon Age Inquisition: Trespasser), which are ALSO going to cost at least 100 BRL.
So with the gaming economy dynamic in such a state, less privileged people are basically sitting out of the very much human right to entertainment (or simple forced to pirate 🤷).
As mentioned by op, I have been playing more and more indie games lately because Triple A releases are just completely non-affordable. And indie games still are going to cost 50+ BRL for me.