The reason the "0 casualties" was emphasized was because he was following John Connor's orders to not kill people (including the police) who were not the bad guys. There was no reason for him to go on an indiscriminate murder spree to eliminate a threat -- there was only 1 threat and he shot the shit out of it every chance he got.
Sarah Connor is also shown to be kind of a man-hating lunatic (particularly in the extended cut of her assassination attempt).
Also, Aliens was just the typical horror formula: everyone but the main character dies. Except in this case, a few others were allowed to live. Bishop helps her escape, Hicks helps her escape, and Newt is saved because she's innocent. Ripley also has to repeatedly face her fears and show personal growth (aided by male characters) to get through the movie. There's no indication that Vasquez is a lesbian and she ends up dying with Gorman in his redemption. Hudson gets a redemption. Sgt. Apone is shown to be a competent, reliable, leader. It's a very masculine storyline where multiple characters experience believable growth arcs.
The reason the "0 casualties" was emphasized was because he was following John Connor's orders to not kill people (including the police) who were not the bad guys. There was no reason for him to go on an indiscriminate murder spree to eliminate a threat -- there was only 1 threat and he shot the shit out of it every chance he got.
Exactly. The OP appears to be advocating that indiscriminate use of violence just for the heck of it is somehow "masculine", and advocating that the use of controlled violence is somehow "soy" or "feminist". On the contrary, an appropriate expression of violence is controlled violence, not indiscriminate violence. In addition, the characterisation of "male violence" as being largely indiscriminate is a flawed feminist understanding of violence. In other words, advocating indiscriminate violence is probably more "soy" than castigating it.
A masculine use of violence would have a purpose, because a man knows what's at stake when violence is deployed. You'd have to be an idiot to try to take on any more than you needed to.
Because she's immediately called out for it by her son? Y'know, how protagonists that are going off the deep end are typically reprimanded in storytelling?
You mean the same trope that has been used countless times for feminist propaganda?
So? Are you saying this is some sort of a "Tropes vs. Men" situation? Or is it just a storytelling device?
"Personal growth" magically makes a woman capable, got it.
What the fuck does this even mean? She learns how to use a gun and faces her fears. Is that something that a woman would be incapable of? Is there anything in Aliens that is unrealistic because of Ripley's sex?
Also, I'll stand by Vasquez not being a lesbian. She's clearly close friends with Wierzbowski (or whatever his name was) and lesbians don't have guy friends. Show me your evidence that she is when you're done lyao like an idiot.
The reason the "0 casualties" was emphasized was because he was following John Connor's orders to not kill people (including the police) who were not the bad guys. There was no reason for him to go on an indiscriminate murder spree to eliminate a threat -- there was only 1 threat and he shot the shit out of it every chance he got.
He was following John's soy orders to not kill anyone, which of course put him and the mission at risk. Typical leftist delusion masquerading as virtue.
Ok, fine. Who would have been an appropriate "kill target" that John Connor (who is trying to save all of humanity) should have made an exception for, in this specific case?
Um, he's trying to save billions of lives. Having any rule against killing people risks that goal, so there should be no such rule. It's also totally out of character for a punk kid who robs people, but that's a whole nother topic and a typical leftist brainwashing tool ("punks who rob people are good people too!").
The reason the "0 casualties" was emphasized was because he was following John Connor's orders to not kill people (including the police) who were not the bad guys. There was no reason for him to go on an indiscriminate murder spree to eliminate a threat -- there was only 1 threat and he shot the shit out of it every chance he got.
Sarah Connor is also shown to be kind of a man-hating lunatic (particularly in the extended cut of her assassination attempt).
Also, Aliens was just the typical horror formula: everyone but the main character dies. Except in this case, a few others were allowed to live. Bishop helps her escape, Hicks helps her escape, and Newt is saved because she's innocent. Ripley also has to repeatedly face her fears and show personal growth (aided by male characters) to get through the movie. There's no indication that Vasquez is a lesbian and she ends up dying with Gorman in his redemption. Hudson gets a redemption. Sgt. Apone is shown to be a competent, reliable, leader. It's a very masculine storyline where multiple characters experience believable growth arcs.
I've never seen Titanic or anything after it.
Exactly. The OP appears to be advocating that indiscriminate use of violence just for the heck of it is somehow "masculine", and advocating that the use of controlled violence is somehow "soy" or "feminist". On the contrary, an appropriate expression of violence is controlled violence, not indiscriminate violence. In addition, the characterisation of "male violence" as being largely indiscriminate is a flawed feminist understanding of violence. In other words, advocating indiscriminate violence is probably more "soy" than castigating it.
Thanks -- I meant to add that point but forgot.
A masculine use of violence would have a purpose, because a man knows what's at stake when violence is deployed. You'd have to be an idiot to try to take on any more than you needed to.
Well shit. I guess Jackie Chan doesn't do 'masculine' action movies because nobody dies.
Game Over Man
Because she's immediately called out for it by her son? Y'know, how protagonists that are going off the deep end are typically reprimanded in storytelling?
So? Are you saying this is some sort of a "Tropes vs. Men" situation? Or is it just a storytelling device?
What the fuck does this even mean? She learns how to use a gun and faces her fears. Is that something that a woman would be incapable of? Is there anything in Aliens that is unrealistic because of Ripley's sex?
Also, I'll stand by Vasquez not being a lesbian. She's clearly close friends with Wierzbowski (or whatever his name was) and lesbians don't have guy friends. Show me your evidence that she is when you're done lyao like an idiot.
He was following John's soy orders to not kill anyone, which of course put him and the mission at risk. Typical leftist delusion masquerading as virtue.
Ok, fine. Who would have been an appropriate "kill target" that John Connor (who is trying to save all of humanity) should have made an exception for, in this specific case?
Um, he's trying to save billions of lives. Having any rule against killing people risks that goal, so there should be no such rule. It's also totally out of character for a punk kid who robs people, but that's a whole nother topic and a typical leftist brainwashing tool ("punks who rob people are good people too!").