Comments (35)
sorted by:
Norenia 33 points ago +33 / -0

Why is "subversion" a good thing? Why is "change" a good thing (especially when it doesn't improve jack shit)?

SarcasticRidley 20 points ago +20 / -0

Why is "change" a good thing

That's the best part: it usually isn't. A change in any system usually results in either catastrophic effects, or the system becoming unrecognizable compared to its former state.

Puberty is a change. Once you go through it, you are fundamentally different than you were before it.

The Great Depression was a change. Before, things were going great, the economy was booming. After, people wiped their asses with money because it was worthless.

The fall of the Soviet Union was a change. Before, it was a repressive regime that spread evil throughout the world. After the collapse, it reverted to just being a bunch of slavic countries with lackluster economies.

Evolution is a change. Some creatures evolved to be more efficient hunters, and others evolved to be less efficient. Guess which ones died out? Hell, Pandas are really only alive right now because we think they're cute.

Then there's climate change. The dinosaurs died out because of a cataclysmic change in their climate. Not the oceans getting a bit warmer, mind you, but the sun literally being blocked out by ash.

theradraccoon 15 points ago +15 / -0

When they do it they believe "change" is synonymous with "improvement."

BandageBandolier 1 point ago +1 / -0

Improving things is hard and they refuse to accept they're too mediocre to pull that off, so they just pretend changing things is the same.

SupremeReader [S] -1 points ago +2 / -3

Most of post-Soviet countries aren't Slavic. The only ones are Russia (mostly, but this is changing), Ukraine, Belarus.

Smith1980 16 points ago +16 / -0

I despise the word subversion. Ever since TLJ

theradraccoon 17 points ago +17 / -0

It's the attempt to unironically insist "it's not a bug, it's a feature" when we all know they're full of shit about that.

Adamrises 9 points ago +9 / -0

Because in theory it means that it isn't predictable. Its the end goal of the Shayamalan "twist" beyond just that final moment of twisting.

Which, again in theory, can be a great thing. The hero just getting domed by a random bullet during an action scene can dramatically raise the stakes and make the whole thing a lot more tense because it subverts the plot armor we expect.

However, when they use it it means "deliberately leading you on to flip the switch after like we didn't."

Shill4Hire 2 points ago +2 / -0

At this point, the only subverting my expectations that is possible is if they actually made good content. That'd subvert my expectations real good!

Unknownsailor 6 points ago +6 / -0

If the people making the changes had a track record of making things worth watching, no one would care. The real issue here is that those making the changes always make bad stuff.

Every. Single. Time.

For over a decade now.

It can't be accidental, or a mistake. Not after all this time. It is intentional.

That is the issue.

Shill4Hire 1 point ago +1 / -0

Their skill level is so low, that imitation or mimickry would fall flat, and be clear it was an inferior product. Arbitrary negative changes allows them to blame their lack of talent, effort, and forethought instead on the asinine changes.

FrostedCricketFlakes 12 points ago +12 / -0

The book about Reach didn't violate the game's story

Fartinggoose 9 points ago +9 / -0

Technically it did.. Reach the game and Fall of reach contradict each other.

FrostedCricketFlakes 9 points ago +9 / -0

The book was made years before the Reach game.

SarcasticRidley 3 points ago +3 / -0

If anything Reach contradicts the book.

Spartan III soldiers who aren't wearing SPI armor, on Reach, with Covenant slipping past Reach's defenses without them noticing, and most importantly, the Pillar of Autumn wasn't even on the surface of Reach during the battle according to the book.

Adamrises 8 points ago +8 / -0

Your ESL title did subvert my expectations though.

With love.

GoofTroop186 7 points ago +7 / -0

If any of you aren’t certain I can confirm that the tv show has zero to do with the story in the books.

Beardicus 6 points ago +6 / -0

Hey! It's got a guy named Master Chief and aliens... good enough.

BidenLikesMiners 1 point ago +1 / -0


Fartinggoose 1 point ago +4 / -3

He never stated it had to do with the books. He said it has references to them, which is true with characters like Soren. It does reference Halo lore but it's such a bad series a token reference here and there doesn't make a difference.

GoofTroop186 8 points ago +8 / -0

I feel like the tone of their post implies that you’d “get” what’s going on in the show if you’d followed the books but you’re not wrong either

Fartinggoose 5 points ago +6 / -1

Well lets be honest, very little goes on in the series. Other than Halsey every character is exactly where they were in the episode they were introduced. It's very hard to not follow a series where nothing happens.

Unknownsailor 4 points ago +4 / -0

Right, the Halo series references the books and lore like the Starship Troopers movie did to that book.

Taking character names and certain events out of lore and weaving them into a shit story doesn't make it follow cannon, it just means you took already established canon and shit all over it.

LauriThorne 1 point ago +1 / -0

Starship Troopers is the peak of bad adaptations.

Fartinggoose 0 points ago +1 / -1

Did any one say it was canon? I said the guy's telling the truth on the lore part. It does pull from the lore for naming things.

Unknownsailor 1 point ago +1 / -0

Read canon as established characters traits and in world behavior. I couldn't think of another term to describe what I meant.

Fartinggoose 0 points ago +1 / -1

Like Soren being a run away Spartan? Or does that not count?

Comic books have pulled off far worse in the past and continue to do so.

logical_obesity6969 5 points ago +5 / -0

It's worth reminding yourself of the meaning of subvert, becuase the woke cultists pass it off like it just means 'change in an unexpected way'. There is also an intentional sleight of hand in the implication that 'subverts expectation of thing' is different than 'subverts actual thing'.

sub·vert (səb-vûrt′) tr.v. sub·vert·ed, sub·vert·ing, sub·verts

  1. To overthrow or destroy

  2. To undermine, overturn, or render ineffective

  3. To cause to serve a purpose other than the original or established one; commandeer or redirect

  4. To undermine, mislead, or betray

bloodguard 5 points ago +5 / -0

They know it's tanking horribly and taking "the message" down with it.

And just like Kevin Smith and Seth Rogen they're doing the hysterical "we're not subverting it even though we said we were" dance when they figure out that the people they were pandering to were never going to watch it in the first place.

And they've pissed off the people that would have watched it if they hadn't fucked it up.

realerfunction 3 points ago +3 / -0

and you contradicted that same lore.

kick a stool.

Brennus 2 points ago +2 / -0

I see a lot of cats in her future

BidenLikesMiners 1 point ago +1 / -0

another ugly tranny ruining gaming