Miranda Lawson is not a seductress!
Jun 24, 2021 20:57:45 GMT
Blast Processor, QuizzyBunny, and 12 more like this
Post by malgus on Jun 24, 2021 20:57:45 GMT
In the last months there have been discussions about Miranda Lawson and how important her butt shots were in ME 2 and how bad it is to change them for the legendary edition. Before I go further, let me say I do not think that Miranda Lawson is a poorly written character, she is actually a very well written one and she has fantastic character development during the series.
The writing is not the problem here, but sometime the visual can be contradictive to what the writing is saying. The line between editing and censorship can be subtle and it seems that people have wildly different versions of Miranda Lawson in their head.
(In this text, I will sometime bash the sequel trilogy of star wars and the arguments that people use to defend them. More specifically the similarities between these and the arguments that were brought in defense of these ass shots, you have been warned)
Now the justifications for the ass shots that I have seen were:
1) Miranda Lawson has been created as the perfect women therefore it makes sense to have shots that put attention on her body.
Now donât get me wrong, the problem is not that Lawson has a big ass or a large breast, it makes sense that she has an attractive body. The problem was that the shots did not make sense for the CONTEXT. In one scene, we have Miranda asking for help from commander Sheppard. During this moment she speaks about her abusive father and that she needs to save her sister from him.
The scene has a very dramatic and heavy tone, yet the camera decides that itâs a good moment to start on her rearâĻ
These kinds of shots made it difficult to take the seriousness of the situation. The camera should focus on how she feels, her face and her emotions should be the focus not how big her butt is. Or at least it should not distract us with a butt that takes 50% of the screen when itâs clearly not the appropriate moment.
Fanservice is fine as long as itâs not tone deaf and that is exactly what these shots were; contradictive to the tone. And I am not even counting the scene where we are in a rush to save Orianna from the eclipse organisation and the camera feels the needs to focus on her rear when she pick up something instead of the emergency of the situation.
It has some similarities with the force-skype conversation in star wars episode 8 TLJ, when Rey talks to Kylo Ren and confronts him about the fact that he committed patricide (killing his father Han solo). But Rian Johnson thought that in this moment, it was a great idea to have Kylo Ren shirtless, Rey blushing and feeling awkward about his half naked body.
In one scene, a person is asking for help to save a relative from a horrible person, the other is a scene where one character confronts another about patricide. And the creator decides that itâs a good moment to include gratuitous fan service while the tone of scene should be dead serious. All of this makes it more difficult to take the scene seriously when the creator puts fan service over the narratives.
Even if you remove the social aspects of this debate, we are left with shots of the ass of Miranda all over the game and a lot of these happen during scenes that are meant as character development for her. Now fanservice itself is not a problem but there just happens to be fanservice who are put awkwardlyâĻ
2) Fanservice is not a problem, why do you complain about that?
Now fanservice can take multiple forms, the existence is not the problem AS LONG as itâs not tone deaf to the story or the plot. Some works do a fantastic job with fanservice and integrate it naturally in the storyline.
For exemple, the short animated movie catwoman from 2011 perfectly exploits the fanservice of the character but make sure itâs useful to the story and coherent with the tone.
At one point Catwoman needs to get close to 3 dangerous criminals who have guns, if she just charged them in an open area, she will get killed. But luckily for her, Rough cut and his 2 bodyguards are in a strip club in front of the dance floor.
And that is where her attractiveness and her tight suit make sense to use; she needs to get near them so she makes a sexy dance on the floor to distract them and when she is close enough. She gets her whips out and attacks them.
A few moments later she seductively walks to a biker and lean to kiss him only for her to steal his bike the next moment.
In both case, Catwoman use her tight suit and her sex appeal to distract her targets. Not only is it totally in-character for Catwoman to do such a thing, it shows why her outfits and her sex appeal make sense in the settings.
Now fanservice does not always have to be used in a utilitarian way. It can be harmless fanservice which is the case of most of the shirtless scenes of Chris Hemsworth as Thor in the MCU.
Most of his scene where he walks shirtless are not necessary but for the most part they happen in very light-hearted scenes where the tone is fun or sweet, therefore it does not take away from the drama and therefore are not distraction. (Except maybe in age of Ultron but that is another story)
In the case of mass effect, most of the shots of Miranda Lawson were distracting and not in tone of what they were representing. A call for help to prevent a kidnapping of an innocent woman by her abusive father is not the right time.
That does not mean there couldnât be a scene in mass effect where the fanservice makes sense or his harmless to the narratives. For example, having her unzipping her suit where we see her underwear is not a problem during her romance scene (I will explain a bit more later on that topic). That is why the CONTEXT matters.
Now some of you might say that it makes sense for Miranda to have ass shots because she is seducing the commander and therefore the camera should pander on her rearâĻ
3) Miranda is a seductress; therefore the ass shots make sense.
So I was surprised how many people used that argument as I have no idea where the people saw that but letâs look into it.
I will ask a simple question the people who use that defense: WHEN? Where did you see that she is a seductress? Some would say, âSince the beginning of the game, she try to seduce the commander at the start!â
Well then we should look at what actually happens:
In her second scene, Shepard asks her to talk about herself; she responds by talking about her professional competence, saying she can destroy a mech with her mind. When Shepard clarifies that his question was on a personal level rather than a professional one, her answer is quite clear:
Miranda: "I am not looking for a friend Shepard, stay focused on the mission".
Shepard: "It's obvious you're not interested in talking"
Miranda: "We've got an assignment, we can talk about it or we can do it!"
Here we have Miranda who is emotionally distant, cold and professional to an extreme. She makes it very clear she does not want to make friends and just want to focus on her work. And basically say âYes itâs true, I donât want to talk to you if itâs not necessary, I want to work!â Would anyone argue that a woman who makes it clear she does not even want someone as a friend is seducing the guy she is talking to?
And then every scene after that, Shepard has to come to her for the relationship to advance, otherwise it wonât progress one bit. And more importantly, during their first kiss, Shepard has to be the one who goes for it. And afterwards, she feels a bit awkward and says it does not mean anything, that she needs fresh air and time to think.
When Shepard goes back to her, Miranda says again that it does not mean anything and she tries to distance herself from him. When she finally reveals that she does have a feeling for the commander (should the player pursue the romance with her) she does not want to get attached at the moment since they might die soon. Then she tells him that she will come to him when she is ready.
Until the very last moment, Miranda is still trying to keep a distance with Shepard, even when the commander tells her he is interested she does not want to get close to him until the very last moment where finally she tells him she wants a relationship. Shepard is the one who has been seducing her all of the game NOT the other way around.
Now maybe some of you might say that she is a seductress on other people than the commander. If that is the case, PLEASE show me the scene in ME 2 or ME 3 where she indeed tries to seduce anyone. I am waitingâĻ
Or someone might say, âWell Miranda is a seductress in a novel or a comic book of Mass effect!â If that is the case, it would seem that the seductress aspect is not that much a part of her personality because the only example of said personality is found in third party media. Perhaps she is just not a seductress if the only example that exists is outside of the main storyline.
If I need to leave the game to understand said part of the personality of a character, well maybe then the writing has failed to put said character traits in action because it needs to rely on third party media.
4) Perfect Genes
Now Miranda refers to her genes a lot, itâs actually part of her insecurity. And some might say that this extends to her curves, breast and ass. Now it could have beenâĻ if there were scenes that highlighted that her insecurity are related to her attractiveness.
Letâs say that there would be a scene where many men were nice to Miranda Lawson and all of them wanted to just be her friend... at least that is what they pretend. They laugh at her bad jokes, they are ready to help her whenever she needs, even if she is rude to them by accident or willingly they instantly forgive her, etc.
She would admit later to Shepard that since she was born perfect, men are nice to her most of the time but their respect is something she didnât earned because itâs her body that is attracting them. They will see her as a goddess regardless of what she does and she hates that because then her successful social interactions with male are due to how she looks instead of how she acts.
This would be a great way to have her body as a source of insecurityâĻ But the thing is none of this is in the game, I had to write it for Mass effect 2 because the game did not. The previous paragraph is my headcanon and not the writing of the game.
But even if my suggestion for ME 2 was in the final product, that her curves and being too attractive is a source of insecurity for her (because she was designed to be perfect before she was born). Then we could wonder why the hell is she wearing a tight leather suit? Why would she wear an outfit that makes her curves more obvious if said curves make her more insecure? Keep this in mind for now, we will explore this later.
When she speaks to the commander about her perfect genes, her dialogues rarely refer to her attractiveness or her beauty AS A SOURCE of insecurity. Yes she mentions it, but It has more to do with the fact that she has a longer lifespan (aging will be less of handicap in her career), she is a powerful biotic for a human (powers for combats), etc.
And that is how she compares herself to Shepard and his accomplishment. The attractiveness or sex appeal has never been linked to Shepardâs victories. Itâs his charisma, his leadership, his strategy and combat skills that lead him to defeat Sovereign and Saren, it has nothing to do with how hot he or she is.
Her inferiority superiority complex she has with Shepard is that he is not a human designed in a lab yet his accomplishments (that are not related to his attractiveness) are worthy of being cemented in history books. While she might have great feats on her own during her lifetime, she feels she owns them to her genes while Shepard owes his to his talents. Itâs not that Shepard is sexier than her or that she got high in the hierarchy of Cerberus because of how sexy she is.
Now it would not be impossible that her attractiveness had something to do with her success, if she indeed used seduction to get results and it was huge part of her personality which would then be part of her complex. But that is exactly the problem, because it is not the case. Seduction is not part of her character, it could have been and would have certainly made great scenes and story if it was executed the right way, but itâs not there.
5) The creators have said that Miranda is a femme fatale, they explain it during interviews and that is how they see her.
If only we could just listen to the justifications of the creator and that would be enough for any creative choices, but thatâs unfortunately not true.
When Gwendoline Christie speaks about how we are supposed to relate to her character in the new star wars (captain Phasma) by her actions rather than the way she looks and flashesâĻ Letâs say itâs just not the case. In the sequel trilogy, her character does practically nothing in both TFA and TLJ. Her screen time is so limited she does not have any opportunity to be relevant and even with the little time she has, she does nothing that would make people relate to her.
She is a cruel Stormtrooper that ask Finn to go in re-education for daring to remove his helmet; she is a coward that sells her faction the moment she is threatened by Han solo (deactivating the shields of Starkiller) and dies pathetically during episode 8. How does anyone supposed to relate to that?
She was solely there for marketing purpose alone considering how much her character accomplishes nothing. Ask yourself this question; do you relate to Phasma just because the actress said you would?
And if you are no fan of the sequel trilogy of star wars, you can find dozens of interviews where both JJ abrams and Rian Johnson talk about their choices. I ask anyone; would that be enough to justify their decision for these movies?
Or if you want to take an even more known example: Game of thrones season 8 (spoilers). The writers (Benioff and Weiss) tried to justify their decision with the last 4 episodes with quotes like these: "Danny kind of forgot about the iron fleet" does hearing this makes the scene any better? When Euron is able to shoot a dragon from an impossible reach while Dany canât see him while she is up in the airâĻ
Does having dumb and dumber saying âshe sees the red keep and decides to make things personalâ make the scene where Danny goes mad and destroy kingâs landing for no reason more believable?
A creator declaring something about a character does not make things true; arguments should rely on what actually happens in the story, the events, the plots, the characterisationâĻ The words of the creators are supposed to be a complement to their writings, not what the people relies on to make an argument.
If a chef tells me he wants to make a lemon pie, and then brings me a chocolate cake. It does not matter how many time he says it is a lemon pie. Objectively, what we have in front of us is a chocolate cake. It might be a good one but itâs just not what the cook told us it was.
Just like it does not matter how much a writer or a game creator says that Miranda Lawson is a femme fatale seductress, because in the final game she is not. It does not means she is badly written, quite the contrary, just not a seductress. You can read the previous point on that.
6) But the costume of Miranda is super sexy that would meanâĻ
So to the people who wonder about this, the costume of Miranda (form fitting tight leather suit) does not mean that she is a seductress or a femme fatale in terms of personality. It just means that a character has been put in a specific costume, not that the costumes make sense for her character or the situation.
If the producers of star wars episode 6 ROTJ were to keep the same dialogues in the script but redesign Darth Sidious visually and instead of giving him a black cloak, the producer gave him a fairy godmother outfits or a Barbie outfits. Would that make Darth Sidious a fairy Godmother or a Barbie in terms personality? No it would not!
Just because the creator gave a character a sexy costume does not mean anything about their personality. Real people in the real world have agencies, fictional character do not because they donât exist and will dress and act the way creator says they will regardless if it fits their personality or the context of the scene.
And itâs the same thing for Miranda. And I know I am opening Pandora box with this: But her outfits made no sense at all in the first place. Even if she was a seductress on WHOM could she use that?
There are lots of Alien races in the mass effect universe and among them; only 4 could be physically attracted to Miranda due to the resemblance: Human, asari, drell or quarrian. And before someone mentions garrus for the turian, I would like to remind you that there is a specific dialogue where he says loud and clear that he is not attracted to Shepard in a physical way. Itâs her personality that makes them soul mates.
In the case of the quarians, they are very rare outside of the flotilla unless they do their pilgrimage and physical contact with them requires a lot of medication for species intercourse. There is also a huge risk for the quarrian involved. Drells are also rare as they are mostly in service of the Hanar so her meeting a drell on which she could use her seduction on is unlikely to happen as they are not a particularly influent race in the galaxy or numerous in terms of population.
Now any Asari could easily be attracted to Miranda in theory, any of them at that because they donât consider gender as they are a genderless race. BUT they also tend to form couple with very different species, from the reptilian krogan to the elephantine Elcor while not forgetting the jellyfish-like hanar. Their beauty standard seems to not really get in the way of their relationship so it is questionable if Miranda outfits would make a difference to them.
Now of course, she could be seductive to humans but even then, it would only work on heterosexual male and lesbians. And even then, those on which she could use her seduction in theory do not mean they will be seduced. Self-control is still very much a thing for many people.
So in the end, the people on whom Miranda could use her seduction are extremely limited galaxy wise. So it didnât make much sense that she would go in combat zone in high heels and tight leather suit, especially in very dangerous environment where survival is far from guaranteed. Why the hell did she prioritise sex appeal and seduction over practicality in combat?
Miranda is a very strict, antisocial (she says it clearly she does not want to make friends), professional to an extreme. Why would she wear an outfit that would attract attention? A super sexy tight suit like the one of Miranda would make her the targets of men hitting on her and there would be a LINE of male wanting to know her more than professionally.
But for some reason the ice queen who is super professional, very strict and does not want to make any friends will make sure to have a costume that highlights her curves and would make sure she is the focus of the attention of any straight male aroundâĻ
Itâs not even like if she wear that outfits for a specific time or events; letâs say the crew would need to infiltrate a reception with rich people and Miranda would use such an outfits to either distracts or seduce men while Shepard and EDI are pirating or stealing something from corrupt corporate executives. Of course this is very similar to Kasumiâs loyalty mission but it is an example of where it would make sense for the situation.
That is not the case here; Miranda is wearing that leather tight outfit everywhere. Even when she is on the Normandy and does not want to have more than a professional relationship with anyone AND when she goes into combat zone fighting enemies like Robots (geth), mercenaries (eclipse, blue sun, berserker), monster (thresher maw, varren) or scary aliens (collectors). She still wears that costume that either makes no sense in terms of intention for the character or is impractical for the situation.
Again there is a very clear distinction between being attracted to a fictional character (her looks and outfits) and the character in question being a seductress. There is a difference between what we feel (because of the camera shots, music and cinematography) and what actually happens on screen (dialogues and action), sometime we get the impression of a character traits even if it is not exactly true.
Is it a crazy idea to consider just for a moment, that Miranda Lawson costume might have been made to be super sexy regardless if it does make sense in universe? That the sex appeal of the outfit might have been made simply because it looked good to the viewers, regardless if it was fitting with the character personality?
Would that be impossible that in this instance, in this specific moment, the designers of ME 2 might have chosen style over substances? That they might have prioritized sexy fanservice over making sense?
Do you think that old Bioware was immune to this flaw in terms of character design? That somehow, many designers in pop culture did it for decades if not centuries but somehow, old Bioware is the only one who would never have put style over substance in one of their games?
7) But there are other characters that also have ridiculous outfits and fanservice shots. Why you donât talk about those?
Some people have said that Jacob has a camera shots on his abs during his romance and somehow it makes it equal to the male gaze of Miranda.
Outside of the fact that the camera is nowhere near as gazey with Jacob than it is with Miranda, as there is only ONE scene where his abs are shown compare to the multiple tone-deaf shots of Miranda ass. The Jacob Taylor muscle shots happen in a very different scene, context matters.
In the scene where Jacob removes his shirt, it is the final scene of his romance. It is the culmination of character development and the relationship that has grown during the events of the game. Both Shepard and his (or her) romance know that it might be their last night. That they might die tomorrow and should it happen they might as well share one last moment together.
2 people are united in their love for their love each other, so of course they would express their love physically and itâs excepted to see some level of eroticism in those scenes. So yes there will be some nudity in these moments. Liara romance scene where we see her butt is not tone deaf because it happens at the last moment of her romance, the culmination of her relationship with the commander. Just like itâs not a problem to see the underwear of Miranda in her last romance scene.
Sometime you can shows multiple naked shots of breast, ass and penises and not be tone deaf. And sometime you can have a few ass shots of one character that is not naked and it can be tone deaf to the story, it always depends on the CONTEXT. During a scene where Miranda Lawson is asking for help to save her sisterâĻ well I have already explained why it is tone deaf.
This reminds me of the people when they defend the sequel trilogy say that Luke Skywalker threw his lightsaber in episode 6 so it make sense that he did in episode 8âĻ which is forgetting the different context between the two scenes.
In episode 6, Luke throwing his weapons is a sign of victory against the emperor: he will not kill his father; the emperor has failed to corrupt him. Itâs there to show that Luke has grown and has gotten self-control, enough to reject the dark sides in front of Palpatine. In episode 8 on the other hand, the lightsaber throwing is an example of cowardice from Luke, fleeing from the call of duty and refuse to move his ass while the galaxy needs him.
The context in those two scenes is extremely different, and that is why people complained about the one in episode 8 while the one in ROTJ made sense. The context of the scenes matters A LOT and just like Luke throwing his lightsaber can sometime make sense, the tone deaf ass shots of Miranda Lawson during a scene where she calls for help is not comparable to a romance scene where 2 people share what might be their last moment together before facing death.
8) What about these other characters costume or scenes?
Just to make it clear, even if you could find another character that has multiple scenes of tone deaf shots, this would be a case of whataboutism. Which is a very recurring fallacy:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism?
âWhat about thane? What about Jacob? What about Kaidan?â etc. Even if those characters had tone-deaf shots during their conversation with Shepard, it would not dismiss the original arguments. I have already explained why scene Jacob Taylor are not similar, but just to explore that possibility, letâs say that they are. Letâs say that the shots on the abs of Jacob Taylor are also distracting from the narrativesâĻ
That would just means there is TWO characters who have tone deaf shots, just because there would be stupid shots of Jacob Taylor does not mean that the shots of Miranda Lawson are suddenly less stupid. It just means that there is another character where the visual language simply failed in their scene. Pointing at another flaw in another scene does not justify the flaw mentioned previously.
This reminds me of the people who try to justify the plot holes in the sequel trilogy of Star wars by pointing out the plot holes in the original trilogy. Who says loudly that Rey having impossible skills and abilities without earning them is fine because Luke and Anakin were the sameâĻ
Even if that would be true that Lukeâs and Anakin skills did not make sense considering their level of training, that would NOT mean that Reyâs level of power are suddenly justified. Even if the original trilogy and the prequel trilogy had similar plot holes that would not justify the sequel trilogy from having said plot holes.
Just like even if Jacob Taylor had stupid shots of him during the ME trilogy, that would not excuse the stupid shots of Miranda during the same trilogy. One stupidity does not justify another, one plot holes does not justify another inconsistencies later in the story.
And the same rule applies for the costume. Some people have said that it is fine that Miranda has a tight suit that makes no sense because that is the case of Samara, Jack, etc.
And you know what? For some of them you are right, Samaraâs costume is also ridiculous and dumb. Why does a religious warrior woman would wear high heels and a form fitting suit with a cleavage? Samara is also a dead serious person and certainly not a seductress why would she wear an outfit that would be hugely impractical for movement and not a freaking armor (does not to be heavy, just some form of protection)?
Now guess what? The stupidity of the design of Samaraâs costume does not suddenly justify the ridiculous costume of Miranda. It just means that there are TWO characters that have stupid costume instead of one. And proving that there a multiple example of character design that prioritizes sexiness over narratives does not dismiss the original arguments.
Even if Jacob Taylor or Kaidan Alenko suddenly got sexy clown costume that would not change the fact that Miranda Lawson would have a stupid costume. It just means there would be more example of character designer failing at their job when they made the outfits.
Whataboutism is defined as a fallacy for a reason. This is why it can take multiple formsâĻ
9. âThere is violence and massacre in mass effect and you worry about ass shots?â
As much as it can be crazy to say that, violence is not a problem in terms of narratives. Heck game of thrones (during the good seasons) was excellently written and it had lots of violence everywhere. Dragon age origins and witcher 3 are well made games; have great writing and they got huge amounts of violence.
It all has to do with the tone; a story can have tons of murder, genocide, torture and stay within the tone set by the plot. An ass shot that happens in a scene where a woman asks for help or has character development is what I explained before: tone deaf.
Mass effect 3 shows children dying and the imminent fall of many civilizations where millions perishes daily. The sound design is made to support such a story; we hear recordings of people in their last moments, soldiers who get outnumbered by the husk and being torn apart slowly. We also see civilians learning that their loved ones are not coming back and being devastated, we see people entering shuttle to just get destroyed seconds later, we see dead bodies everywhere to make us understand how horrible the situation is.
The sound design and the visual are made to be consistent with the tone. It has everything to do with the context; is the media in question a serious science fiction or a teenage comedy? Does the visual language match the character and the action?
The tone of the mass effect franchise remains serious especially in 2 or 3 where the ambiance is much darker than before. If mass effect was similar to Spaceballs, or an over the top science fiction adventure that is a bit silly, it would be much less jarring to have these kinds of costume and shots. But that is not the case here; it depends on the tone fixed by the creators:
Little rant about the Last of us 2 incoming, related to the previous point:
There is a reason why some people complain about Abbyâs design in the Last of us 2. Her huge muscles did not make sense for the tone of the story because the franchise is dead serious.
Men and women have different metabolism and biology; females having less testosterone would need way more training and tons of food to be like Abby. The problem is, this is a post-apocalyptic world where resources are scarce, and the amount of protein Abby would need to ingest to keep this body would be insaneâĻ and selfish as she would remove all of those reserves that could feed other survivor and keep it to herself.
Suspension of disbelief allows me to think that the cortyceps is able to infect humans in TLOU world, not that humans can suddenly get impossible bodies in a world where survival is a fight every day. It does not make sense because the creators wanted a dead serious tone of the TLOU but also didnât care about consistency.
If all of that happens in a silly zombie manga like high school of the dead, where the women are always in top physical condition and have nearly perfect make up even when they donât have access to much resources or any beauty products in this zombie apocalypse world. I am less regarding for looks that make sense because while this is a series that can get serious sometime, it is less shy into admitting its own stupidity with huge amount of ridiculous fanservice and numerous ecchi jokes.
Highschool of the dead is aware it is not an artistic series that will revolutionize writing; it might have serious moments but it embrace its idiocy many times. TLOU 2 remains dead serious and is even darker than the first in some regards.
If I continue with tone, incompetent and stupid villains like dark helmet from Spaceballs or Dr.evil from Austin powers works because they are in parodies. Having Dr.evil leaving Austin powers in a cell with 1 guard watching him is acceptable because we are in a humorous film that is meant to laugh of these clichÊs. Kylo ren doing the same mistakes in episode 7 of star wars when this is supposed to be a film meant to be taken seriously does not work. It has everything to with the genre and the tone of the situation where it happens.
End of the rant
In the end, if a visual is contradictive to the tone, it is not censorship to change the shots, the graphics or the animation. That it is called EDITINGâĻ
10) But what about the original vision of the creatorâĻ
So this may shock some people but just because something is a classic does not mean there is no room for improvement even for a media we might have nostalgia for. A remaster is an opportunity to improve the visuals that were not supportive of the script, nonsensical or simply poorly designed.
For example, the remaster Halo 2 anniversary made several changes from the 2004 game:
The Gravemind was previously a plant monster that was not as scary as the developer hoped it would be. To some it was a reminder of Audrey from Little pet shop of horrors rather than the scary leader of the hive mind that wants to consume all life in the galaxy. Therefore he was changed from a plant monster to an organic terrifying sand worm with multiple scary mouths:
There is also a scene where Miranda Keyes is shooting with 2 machine guns at the arbiter in the original halo 2. Many people started to scratch their head how this could be possible. The master chief is a super soldier wearing an armor that enhanced his physical strength; it made sense that he was able to endure the recoil from firing 2 automatic guns at the same time.
Keyes does not have any lore reasons to be able to do such a feat; she is a normal human without any armor that improves her strength. Since the scene did not made sense, Halo 2 anniversary made change and the cut scenes went from this:
To this:
In these two cases, would anyone argue that this is censorship? Would anyone say that Blur studio (the people who remade the graphics of Halo 2 anniversary) are ruining the vision of bungie and the original creator? Would anyone tell me that this is not the ârealâ Halo and that that the original design of the gravemind who wasnât scary needed no improvement?
Or the scene where Miranda Keyes is firing with 2 guns (despite her not having the physical capacity to do that) was great and any change would be degrading Halo 2?
Actually letâs talk again about the daughter of captain keyes, in the first version of Halo 2 she is able to make a feat that requires super strength. The people working on the remaster understand that this does not make sense, that a female character without physical enhancements or exoskeleton should not be able to do that. So they remake the scene to give a her a more coherent accomplishment by making her shoot at the arbiter with one gun.
Would someone tell me that this change is an SJW conspiracy? That the feminist are behind this action and they are censoring Halo? Or itâs just a studio who realise something is not making sense in one of their games and made an editing to improve the visual of the scenesâĻ
Even a classic game can have bad visuals from time to time; itâs not censorship to try to make an improvement over them if a design or a shot does not fit the tone or the storyline. That does not mean the visual is always an improvement but even great games sometime have their visual aspects fail to be coherent with the narratives.
The artistic vision is in many cases used as a deflector shield against criticism because according to many, their nostalgia can never be put into questionâĻ
In the end it seems that the people who are willing die on a hill for these ass shots have created themselves another version of Miranda Lawson in their head. They gave her a seductress personality because they want all of it to make sense even if itâs not part of her character. They like her sex appeal, for some it might have been of their crush when they were younger and the idea of changing the visuals for the sake of the narratives might sound scary or intrusive to their nostalgia.
As a big fan of the franchise, I can sometime be critical of many aspects of the trilogy, but that does not mean I put everything into the garbage. The franchise has plenty of great things to enjoy. But you see, no matter the goods and the positives, no game are perfect and there are room for improvement especially in the visual department and a remaster is an excellent opportunity for that.
Nostalgia can sometime be a double edge sword because on one hand we might enjoy a media more than anything new because there is something to connect to, that we have experienced when we were teenagers or kids. But we can also easily become more defensive of it and less likely to put in question some of its aspects.
The writing is not the problem here, but sometime the visual can be contradictive to what the writing is saying. The line between editing and censorship can be subtle and it seems that people have wildly different versions of Miranda Lawson in their head.
(In this text, I will sometime bash the sequel trilogy of star wars and the arguments that people use to defend them. More specifically the similarities between these and the arguments that were brought in defense of these ass shots, you have been warned)
Now the justifications for the ass shots that I have seen were:
1) Miranda Lawson has been created as the perfect women therefore it makes sense to have shots that put attention on her body.
Now donât get me wrong, the problem is not that Lawson has a big ass or a large breast, it makes sense that she has an attractive body. The problem was that the shots did not make sense for the CONTEXT. In one scene, we have Miranda asking for help from commander Sheppard. During this moment she speaks about her abusive father and that she needs to save her sister from him.
The scene has a very dramatic and heavy tone, yet the camera decides that itâs a good moment to start on her rearâĻ
These kinds of shots made it difficult to take the seriousness of the situation. The camera should focus on how she feels, her face and her emotions should be the focus not how big her butt is. Or at least it should not distract us with a butt that takes 50% of the screen when itâs clearly not the appropriate moment.
Fanservice is fine as long as itâs not tone deaf and that is exactly what these shots were; contradictive to the tone. And I am not even counting the scene where we are in a rush to save Orianna from the eclipse organisation and the camera feels the needs to focus on her rear when she pick up something instead of the emergency of the situation.
It has some similarities with the force-skype conversation in star wars episode 8 TLJ, when Rey talks to Kylo Ren and confronts him about the fact that he committed patricide (killing his father Han solo). But Rian Johnson thought that in this moment, it was a great idea to have Kylo Ren shirtless, Rey blushing and feeling awkward about his half naked body.
In one scene, a person is asking for help to save a relative from a horrible person, the other is a scene where one character confronts another about patricide. And the creator decides that itâs a good moment to include gratuitous fan service while the tone of scene should be dead serious. All of this makes it more difficult to take the scene seriously when the creator puts fan service over the narratives.
Even if you remove the social aspects of this debate, we are left with shots of the ass of Miranda all over the game and a lot of these happen during scenes that are meant as character development for her. Now fanservice itself is not a problem but there just happens to be fanservice who are put awkwardlyâĻ
2) Fanservice is not a problem, why do you complain about that?
Now fanservice can take multiple forms, the existence is not the problem AS LONG as itâs not tone deaf to the story or the plot. Some works do a fantastic job with fanservice and integrate it naturally in the storyline.
For exemple, the short animated movie catwoman from 2011 perfectly exploits the fanservice of the character but make sure itâs useful to the story and coherent with the tone.
At one point Catwoman needs to get close to 3 dangerous criminals who have guns, if she just charged them in an open area, she will get killed. But luckily for her, Rough cut and his 2 bodyguards are in a strip club in front of the dance floor.
And that is where her attractiveness and her tight suit make sense to use; she needs to get near them so she makes a sexy dance on the floor to distract them and when she is close enough. She gets her whips out and attacks them.
A few moments later she seductively walks to a biker and lean to kiss him only for her to steal his bike the next moment.
In both case, Catwoman use her tight suit and her sex appeal to distract her targets. Not only is it totally in-character for Catwoman to do such a thing, it shows why her outfits and her sex appeal make sense in the settings.
Now fanservice does not always have to be used in a utilitarian way. It can be harmless fanservice which is the case of most of the shirtless scenes of Chris Hemsworth as Thor in the MCU.
Most of his scene where he walks shirtless are not necessary but for the most part they happen in very light-hearted scenes where the tone is fun or sweet, therefore it does not take away from the drama and therefore are not distraction. (Except maybe in age of Ultron but that is another story)
In the case of mass effect, most of the shots of Miranda Lawson were distracting and not in tone of what they were representing. A call for help to prevent a kidnapping of an innocent woman by her abusive father is not the right time.
That does not mean there couldnât be a scene in mass effect where the fanservice makes sense or his harmless to the narratives. For example, having her unzipping her suit where we see her underwear is not a problem during her romance scene (I will explain a bit more later on that topic). That is why the CONTEXT matters.
Now some of you might say that it makes sense for Miranda to have ass shots because she is seducing the commander and therefore the camera should pander on her rearâĻ
3) Miranda is a seductress; therefore the ass shots make sense.
So I was surprised how many people used that argument as I have no idea where the people saw that but letâs look into it.
I will ask a simple question the people who use that defense: WHEN? Where did you see that she is a seductress? Some would say, âSince the beginning of the game, she try to seduce the commander at the start!â
Well then we should look at what actually happens:
In her second scene, Shepard asks her to talk about herself; she responds by talking about her professional competence, saying she can destroy a mech with her mind. When Shepard clarifies that his question was on a personal level rather than a professional one, her answer is quite clear:
Miranda: "I am not looking for a friend Shepard, stay focused on the mission".
Shepard: "It's obvious you're not interested in talking"
Miranda: "We've got an assignment, we can talk about it or we can do it!"
Here we have Miranda who is emotionally distant, cold and professional to an extreme. She makes it very clear she does not want to make friends and just want to focus on her work. And basically say âYes itâs true, I donât want to talk to you if itâs not necessary, I want to work!â Would anyone argue that a woman who makes it clear she does not even want someone as a friend is seducing the guy she is talking to?
And then every scene after that, Shepard has to come to her for the relationship to advance, otherwise it wonât progress one bit. And more importantly, during their first kiss, Shepard has to be the one who goes for it. And afterwards, she feels a bit awkward and says it does not mean anything, that she needs fresh air and time to think.
When Shepard goes back to her, Miranda says again that it does not mean anything and she tries to distance herself from him. When she finally reveals that she does have a feeling for the commander (should the player pursue the romance with her) she does not want to get attached at the moment since they might die soon. Then she tells him that she will come to him when she is ready.
Until the very last moment, Miranda is still trying to keep a distance with Shepard, even when the commander tells her he is interested she does not want to get close to him until the very last moment where finally she tells him she wants a relationship. Shepard is the one who has been seducing her all of the game NOT the other way around.
Now maybe some of you might say that she is a seductress on other people than the commander. If that is the case, PLEASE show me the scene in ME 2 or ME 3 where she indeed tries to seduce anyone. I am waitingâĻ
Or someone might say, âWell Miranda is a seductress in a novel or a comic book of Mass effect!â If that is the case, it would seem that the seductress aspect is not that much a part of her personality because the only example of said personality is found in third party media. Perhaps she is just not a seductress if the only example that exists is outside of the main storyline.
If I need to leave the game to understand said part of the personality of a character, well maybe then the writing has failed to put said character traits in action because it needs to rely on third party media.
4) Perfect Genes
Now Miranda refers to her genes a lot, itâs actually part of her insecurity. And some might say that this extends to her curves, breast and ass. Now it could have beenâĻ if there were scenes that highlighted that her insecurity are related to her attractiveness.
Letâs say that there would be a scene where many men were nice to Miranda Lawson and all of them wanted to just be her friend... at least that is what they pretend. They laugh at her bad jokes, they are ready to help her whenever she needs, even if she is rude to them by accident or willingly they instantly forgive her, etc.
She would admit later to Shepard that since she was born perfect, men are nice to her most of the time but their respect is something she didnât earned because itâs her body that is attracting them. They will see her as a goddess regardless of what she does and she hates that because then her successful social interactions with male are due to how she looks instead of how she acts.
This would be a great way to have her body as a source of insecurityâĻ But the thing is none of this is in the game, I had to write it for Mass effect 2 because the game did not. The previous paragraph is my headcanon and not the writing of the game.
But even if my suggestion for ME 2 was in the final product, that her curves and being too attractive is a source of insecurity for her (because she was designed to be perfect before she was born). Then we could wonder why the hell is she wearing a tight leather suit? Why would she wear an outfit that makes her curves more obvious if said curves make her more insecure? Keep this in mind for now, we will explore this later.
When she speaks to the commander about her perfect genes, her dialogues rarely refer to her attractiveness or her beauty AS A SOURCE of insecurity. Yes she mentions it, but It has more to do with the fact that she has a longer lifespan (aging will be less of handicap in her career), she is a powerful biotic for a human (powers for combats), etc.
And that is how she compares herself to Shepard and his accomplishment. The attractiveness or sex appeal has never been linked to Shepardâs victories. Itâs his charisma, his leadership, his strategy and combat skills that lead him to defeat Sovereign and Saren, it has nothing to do with how hot he or she is.
Her inferiority superiority complex she has with Shepard is that he is not a human designed in a lab yet his accomplishments (that are not related to his attractiveness) are worthy of being cemented in history books. While she might have great feats on her own during her lifetime, she feels she owns them to her genes while Shepard owes his to his talents. Itâs not that Shepard is sexier than her or that she got high in the hierarchy of Cerberus because of how sexy she is.
Now it would not be impossible that her attractiveness had something to do with her success, if she indeed used seduction to get results and it was huge part of her personality which would then be part of her complex. But that is exactly the problem, because it is not the case. Seduction is not part of her character, it could have been and would have certainly made great scenes and story if it was executed the right way, but itâs not there.
5) The creators have said that Miranda is a femme fatale, they explain it during interviews and that is how they see her.
If only we could just listen to the justifications of the creator and that would be enough for any creative choices, but thatâs unfortunately not true.
When Gwendoline Christie speaks about how we are supposed to relate to her character in the new star wars (captain Phasma) by her actions rather than the way she looks and flashesâĻ Letâs say itâs just not the case. In the sequel trilogy, her character does practically nothing in both TFA and TLJ. Her screen time is so limited she does not have any opportunity to be relevant and even with the little time she has, she does nothing that would make people relate to her.
She is a cruel Stormtrooper that ask Finn to go in re-education for daring to remove his helmet; she is a coward that sells her faction the moment she is threatened by Han solo (deactivating the shields of Starkiller) and dies pathetically during episode 8. How does anyone supposed to relate to that?
She was solely there for marketing purpose alone considering how much her character accomplishes nothing. Ask yourself this question; do you relate to Phasma just because the actress said you would?
And if you are no fan of the sequel trilogy of star wars, you can find dozens of interviews where both JJ abrams and Rian Johnson talk about their choices. I ask anyone; would that be enough to justify their decision for these movies?
Or if you want to take an even more known example: Game of thrones season 8 (spoilers). The writers (Benioff and Weiss) tried to justify their decision with the last 4 episodes with quotes like these: "Danny kind of forgot about the iron fleet" does hearing this makes the scene any better? When Euron is able to shoot a dragon from an impossible reach while Dany canât see him while she is up in the airâĻ
Does having dumb and dumber saying âshe sees the red keep and decides to make things personalâ make the scene where Danny goes mad and destroy kingâs landing for no reason more believable?
A creator declaring something about a character does not make things true; arguments should rely on what actually happens in the story, the events, the plots, the characterisationâĻ The words of the creators are supposed to be a complement to their writings, not what the people relies on to make an argument.
If a chef tells me he wants to make a lemon pie, and then brings me a chocolate cake. It does not matter how many time he says it is a lemon pie. Objectively, what we have in front of us is a chocolate cake. It might be a good one but itâs just not what the cook told us it was.
Just like it does not matter how much a writer or a game creator says that Miranda Lawson is a femme fatale seductress, because in the final game she is not. It does not means she is badly written, quite the contrary, just not a seductress. You can read the previous point on that.
6) But the costume of Miranda is super sexy that would meanâĻ
So to the people who wonder about this, the costume of Miranda (form fitting tight leather suit) does not mean that she is a seductress or a femme fatale in terms of personality. It just means that a character has been put in a specific costume, not that the costumes make sense for her character or the situation.
If the producers of star wars episode 6 ROTJ were to keep the same dialogues in the script but redesign Darth Sidious visually and instead of giving him a black cloak, the producer gave him a fairy godmother outfits or a Barbie outfits. Would that make Darth Sidious a fairy Godmother or a Barbie in terms personality? No it would not!
Just because the creator gave a character a sexy costume does not mean anything about their personality. Real people in the real world have agencies, fictional character do not because they donât exist and will dress and act the way creator says they will regardless if it fits their personality or the context of the scene.
And itâs the same thing for Miranda. And I know I am opening Pandora box with this: But her outfits made no sense at all in the first place. Even if she was a seductress on WHOM could she use that?
There are lots of Alien races in the mass effect universe and among them; only 4 could be physically attracted to Miranda due to the resemblance: Human, asari, drell or quarrian. And before someone mentions garrus for the turian, I would like to remind you that there is a specific dialogue where he says loud and clear that he is not attracted to Shepard in a physical way. Itâs her personality that makes them soul mates.
In the case of the quarians, they are very rare outside of the flotilla unless they do their pilgrimage and physical contact with them requires a lot of medication for species intercourse. There is also a huge risk for the quarrian involved. Drells are also rare as they are mostly in service of the Hanar so her meeting a drell on which she could use her seduction on is unlikely to happen as they are not a particularly influent race in the galaxy or numerous in terms of population.
Now any Asari could easily be attracted to Miranda in theory, any of them at that because they donât consider gender as they are a genderless race. BUT they also tend to form couple with very different species, from the reptilian krogan to the elephantine Elcor while not forgetting the jellyfish-like hanar. Their beauty standard seems to not really get in the way of their relationship so it is questionable if Miranda outfits would make a difference to them.
Now of course, she could be seductive to humans but even then, it would only work on heterosexual male and lesbians. And even then, those on which she could use her seduction in theory do not mean they will be seduced. Self-control is still very much a thing for many people.
So in the end, the people on whom Miranda could use her seduction are extremely limited galaxy wise. So it didnât make much sense that she would go in combat zone in high heels and tight leather suit, especially in very dangerous environment where survival is far from guaranteed. Why the hell did she prioritise sex appeal and seduction over practicality in combat?
Miranda is a very strict, antisocial (she says it clearly she does not want to make friends), professional to an extreme. Why would she wear an outfit that would attract attention? A super sexy tight suit like the one of Miranda would make her the targets of men hitting on her and there would be a LINE of male wanting to know her more than professionally.
But for some reason the ice queen who is super professional, very strict and does not want to make any friends will make sure to have a costume that highlights her curves and would make sure she is the focus of the attention of any straight male aroundâĻ
Itâs not even like if she wear that outfits for a specific time or events; letâs say the crew would need to infiltrate a reception with rich people and Miranda would use such an outfits to either distracts or seduce men while Shepard and EDI are pirating or stealing something from corrupt corporate executives. Of course this is very similar to Kasumiâs loyalty mission but it is an example of where it would make sense for the situation.
That is not the case here; Miranda is wearing that leather tight outfit everywhere. Even when she is on the Normandy and does not want to have more than a professional relationship with anyone AND when she goes into combat zone fighting enemies like Robots (geth), mercenaries (eclipse, blue sun, berserker), monster (thresher maw, varren) or scary aliens (collectors). She still wears that costume that either makes no sense in terms of intention for the character or is impractical for the situation.
Again there is a very clear distinction between being attracted to a fictional character (her looks and outfits) and the character in question being a seductress. There is a difference between what we feel (because of the camera shots, music and cinematography) and what actually happens on screen (dialogues and action), sometime we get the impression of a character traits even if it is not exactly true.
Is it a crazy idea to consider just for a moment, that Miranda Lawson costume might have been made to be super sexy regardless if it does make sense in universe? That the sex appeal of the outfit might have been made simply because it looked good to the viewers, regardless if it was fitting with the character personality?
Would that be impossible that in this instance, in this specific moment, the designers of ME 2 might have chosen style over substances? That they might have prioritized sexy fanservice over making sense?
Do you think that old Bioware was immune to this flaw in terms of character design? That somehow, many designers in pop culture did it for decades if not centuries but somehow, old Bioware is the only one who would never have put style over substance in one of their games?
7) But there are other characters that also have ridiculous outfits and fanservice shots. Why you donât talk about those?
Some people have said that Jacob has a camera shots on his abs during his romance and somehow it makes it equal to the male gaze of Miranda.
Outside of the fact that the camera is nowhere near as gazey with Jacob than it is with Miranda, as there is only ONE scene where his abs are shown compare to the multiple tone-deaf shots of Miranda ass. The Jacob Taylor muscle shots happen in a very different scene, context matters.
In the scene where Jacob removes his shirt, it is the final scene of his romance. It is the culmination of character development and the relationship that has grown during the events of the game. Both Shepard and his (or her) romance know that it might be their last night. That they might die tomorrow and should it happen they might as well share one last moment together.
2 people are united in their love for their love each other, so of course they would express their love physically and itâs excepted to see some level of eroticism in those scenes. So yes there will be some nudity in these moments. Liara romance scene where we see her butt is not tone deaf because it happens at the last moment of her romance, the culmination of her relationship with the commander. Just like itâs not a problem to see the underwear of Miranda in her last romance scene.
Sometime you can shows multiple naked shots of breast, ass and penises and not be tone deaf. And sometime you can have a few ass shots of one character that is not naked and it can be tone deaf to the story, it always depends on the CONTEXT. During a scene where Miranda Lawson is asking for help to save her sisterâĻ well I have already explained why it is tone deaf.
This reminds me of the people when they defend the sequel trilogy say that Luke Skywalker threw his lightsaber in episode 6 so it make sense that he did in episode 8âĻ which is forgetting the different context between the two scenes.
In episode 6, Luke throwing his weapons is a sign of victory against the emperor: he will not kill his father; the emperor has failed to corrupt him. Itâs there to show that Luke has grown and has gotten self-control, enough to reject the dark sides in front of Palpatine. In episode 8 on the other hand, the lightsaber throwing is an example of cowardice from Luke, fleeing from the call of duty and refuse to move his ass while the galaxy needs him.
The context in those two scenes is extremely different, and that is why people complained about the one in episode 8 while the one in ROTJ made sense. The context of the scenes matters A LOT and just like Luke throwing his lightsaber can sometime make sense, the tone deaf ass shots of Miranda Lawson during a scene where she calls for help is not comparable to a romance scene where 2 people share what might be their last moment together before facing death.
8) What about these other characters costume or scenes?
Just to make it clear, even if you could find another character that has multiple scenes of tone deaf shots, this would be a case of whataboutism. Which is a very recurring fallacy:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism?
âWhat about thane? What about Jacob? What about Kaidan?â etc. Even if those characters had tone-deaf shots during their conversation with Shepard, it would not dismiss the original arguments. I have already explained why scene Jacob Taylor are not similar, but just to explore that possibility, letâs say that they are. Letâs say that the shots on the abs of Jacob Taylor are also distracting from the narrativesâĻ
That would just means there is TWO characters who have tone deaf shots, just because there would be stupid shots of Jacob Taylor does not mean that the shots of Miranda Lawson are suddenly less stupid. It just means that there is another character where the visual language simply failed in their scene. Pointing at another flaw in another scene does not justify the flaw mentioned previously.
This reminds me of the people who try to justify the plot holes in the sequel trilogy of Star wars by pointing out the plot holes in the original trilogy. Who says loudly that Rey having impossible skills and abilities without earning them is fine because Luke and Anakin were the sameâĻ
Even if that would be true that Lukeâs and Anakin skills did not make sense considering their level of training, that would NOT mean that Reyâs level of power are suddenly justified. Even if the original trilogy and the prequel trilogy had similar plot holes that would not justify the sequel trilogy from having said plot holes.
Just like even if Jacob Taylor had stupid shots of him during the ME trilogy, that would not excuse the stupid shots of Miranda during the same trilogy. One stupidity does not justify another, one plot holes does not justify another inconsistencies later in the story.
And the same rule applies for the costume. Some people have said that it is fine that Miranda has a tight suit that makes no sense because that is the case of Samara, Jack, etc.
And you know what? For some of them you are right, Samaraâs costume is also ridiculous and dumb. Why does a religious warrior woman would wear high heels and a form fitting suit with a cleavage? Samara is also a dead serious person and certainly not a seductress why would she wear an outfit that would be hugely impractical for movement and not a freaking armor (does not to be heavy, just some form of protection)?
Now guess what? The stupidity of the design of Samaraâs costume does not suddenly justify the ridiculous costume of Miranda. It just means that there are TWO characters that have stupid costume instead of one. And proving that there a multiple example of character design that prioritizes sexiness over narratives does not dismiss the original arguments.
Even if Jacob Taylor or Kaidan Alenko suddenly got sexy clown costume that would not change the fact that Miranda Lawson would have a stupid costume. It just means there would be more example of character designer failing at their job when they made the outfits.
Whataboutism is defined as a fallacy for a reason. This is why it can take multiple formsâĻ
9. âThere is violence and massacre in mass effect and you worry about ass shots?â
As much as it can be crazy to say that, violence is not a problem in terms of narratives. Heck game of thrones (during the good seasons) was excellently written and it had lots of violence everywhere. Dragon age origins and witcher 3 are well made games; have great writing and they got huge amounts of violence.
It all has to do with the tone; a story can have tons of murder, genocide, torture and stay within the tone set by the plot. An ass shot that happens in a scene where a woman asks for help or has character development is what I explained before: tone deaf.
Mass effect 3 shows children dying and the imminent fall of many civilizations where millions perishes daily. The sound design is made to support such a story; we hear recordings of people in their last moments, soldiers who get outnumbered by the husk and being torn apart slowly. We also see civilians learning that their loved ones are not coming back and being devastated, we see people entering shuttle to just get destroyed seconds later, we see dead bodies everywhere to make us understand how horrible the situation is.
The sound design and the visual are made to be consistent with the tone. It has everything to do with the context; is the media in question a serious science fiction or a teenage comedy? Does the visual language match the character and the action?
The tone of the mass effect franchise remains serious especially in 2 or 3 where the ambiance is much darker than before. If mass effect was similar to Spaceballs, or an over the top science fiction adventure that is a bit silly, it would be much less jarring to have these kinds of costume and shots. But that is not the case here; it depends on the tone fixed by the creators:
Little rant about the Last of us 2 incoming, related to the previous point:
There is a reason why some people complain about Abbyâs design in the Last of us 2. Her huge muscles did not make sense for the tone of the story because the franchise is dead serious.
Men and women have different metabolism and biology; females having less testosterone would need way more training and tons of food to be like Abby. The problem is, this is a post-apocalyptic world where resources are scarce, and the amount of protein Abby would need to ingest to keep this body would be insaneâĻ and selfish as she would remove all of those reserves that could feed other survivor and keep it to herself.
Suspension of disbelief allows me to think that the cortyceps is able to infect humans in TLOU world, not that humans can suddenly get impossible bodies in a world where survival is a fight every day. It does not make sense because the creators wanted a dead serious tone of the TLOU but also didnât care about consistency.
If all of that happens in a silly zombie manga like high school of the dead, where the women are always in top physical condition and have nearly perfect make up even when they donât have access to much resources or any beauty products in this zombie apocalypse world. I am less regarding for looks that make sense because while this is a series that can get serious sometime, it is less shy into admitting its own stupidity with huge amount of ridiculous fanservice and numerous ecchi jokes.
Highschool of the dead is aware it is not an artistic series that will revolutionize writing; it might have serious moments but it embrace its idiocy many times. TLOU 2 remains dead serious and is even darker than the first in some regards.
If I continue with tone, incompetent and stupid villains like dark helmet from Spaceballs or Dr.evil from Austin powers works because they are in parodies. Having Dr.evil leaving Austin powers in a cell with 1 guard watching him is acceptable because we are in a humorous film that is meant to laugh of these clichÊs. Kylo ren doing the same mistakes in episode 7 of star wars when this is supposed to be a film meant to be taken seriously does not work. It has everything to with the genre and the tone of the situation where it happens.
End of the rant
In the end, if a visual is contradictive to the tone, it is not censorship to change the shots, the graphics or the animation. That it is called EDITINGâĻ
10) But what about the original vision of the creatorâĻ
So this may shock some people but just because something is a classic does not mean there is no room for improvement even for a media we might have nostalgia for. A remaster is an opportunity to improve the visuals that were not supportive of the script, nonsensical or simply poorly designed.
For example, the remaster Halo 2 anniversary made several changes from the 2004 game:
The Gravemind was previously a plant monster that was not as scary as the developer hoped it would be. To some it was a reminder of Audrey from Little pet shop of horrors rather than the scary leader of the hive mind that wants to consume all life in the galaxy. Therefore he was changed from a plant monster to an organic terrifying sand worm with multiple scary mouths:
There is also a scene where Miranda Keyes is shooting with 2 machine guns at the arbiter in the original halo 2. Many people started to scratch their head how this could be possible. The master chief is a super soldier wearing an armor that enhanced his physical strength; it made sense that he was able to endure the recoil from firing 2 automatic guns at the same time.
Keyes does not have any lore reasons to be able to do such a feat; she is a normal human without any armor that improves her strength. Since the scene did not made sense, Halo 2 anniversary made change and the cut scenes went from this:
To this:
In these two cases, would anyone argue that this is censorship? Would anyone say that Blur studio (the people who remade the graphics of Halo 2 anniversary) are ruining the vision of bungie and the original creator? Would anyone tell me that this is not the ârealâ Halo and that that the original design of the gravemind who wasnât scary needed no improvement?
Or the scene where Miranda Keyes is firing with 2 guns (despite her not having the physical capacity to do that) was great and any change would be degrading Halo 2?
Actually letâs talk again about the daughter of captain keyes, in the first version of Halo 2 she is able to make a feat that requires super strength. The people working on the remaster understand that this does not make sense, that a female character without physical enhancements or exoskeleton should not be able to do that. So they remake the scene to give a her a more coherent accomplishment by making her shoot at the arbiter with one gun.
Would someone tell me that this change is an SJW conspiracy? That the feminist are behind this action and they are censoring Halo? Or itâs just a studio who realise something is not making sense in one of their games and made an editing to improve the visual of the scenesâĻ
Even a classic game can have bad visuals from time to time; itâs not censorship to try to make an improvement over them if a design or a shot does not fit the tone or the storyline. That does not mean the visual is always an improvement but even great games sometime have their visual aspects fail to be coherent with the narratives.
The artistic vision is in many cases used as a deflector shield against criticism because according to many, their nostalgia can never be put into questionâĻ
In the end it seems that the people who are willing die on a hill for these ass shots have created themselves another version of Miranda Lawson in their head. They gave her a seductress personality because they want all of it to make sense even if itâs not part of her character. They like her sex appeal, for some it might have been of their crush when they were younger and the idea of changing the visuals for the sake of the narratives might sound scary or intrusive to their nostalgia.
As a big fan of the franchise, I can sometime be critical of many aspects of the trilogy, but that does not mean I put everything into the garbage. The franchise has plenty of great things to enjoy. But you see, no matter the goods and the positives, no game are perfect and there are room for improvement especially in the visual department and a remaster is an excellent opportunity for that.
Nostalgia can sometime be a double edge sword because on one hand we might enjoy a media more than anything new because there is something to connect to, that we have experienced when we were teenagers or kids. But we can also easily become more defensive of it and less likely to put in question some of its aspects.