So it seems like this is pretty much Shadowrun during the beginning of the 6th World

So it seems like this is pretty much Shadowrun during the beginning of the 6th World.

youtube.com/watch?v=27PYKvF-Qek

Thoughts?

Other urls found in this thread:

jap.physiology.org/content/89/1/81
dl.dropboxusercontent.com/content_link/ljzoQk83g7vY0n4QV6rFw21berBtFfFeD7jWZOWIydIwmH9GFtnxKKOcynqcM51F/file?dl=1
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3448119/
wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/2011-2012/MGX_G.htm
cbssports.com/soccer/news/a-dallas-fc-under-15-boys-squad-beat-the-u-s-womens-national-team-in-a-scrimmage/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I mean, I'll definitely give it a watch. Worst case scenario, it's really bad and I've wasted my time. Best case scenario, we get the best Shadowrun movie ever made. I'll take those odds.

Wow yeah this basically is. Wonder if we get Dunkelzahn revealed at the end of the credits

>Thoughts?
With this being an obvious racism allegory, it makes me wonder if RPG books made in the 6th world, do they give the different races different stats, or do they make them all the same to avoid being racist/sexist like how most mainstream RPG books avoid giving different stats to men and women?

I mean, a troll is very obviously stronger than a human

A man is not very obviously stronger than a woman

I'll give it a watch maybe. I wonder if while filming suicide squad the director came in and asked the actors if they wanted to be in a Shadowrun film. And Will Smith and that corrupt prison guard (the guy with the mo who puts on the glove) said 'sure'.

There's probably an Ork supremacist RPG where orks have ten strength and humans have five and elves have one.

In general though I think most people recognize the obvious differences. Though there is probably shit like people saying orcs should have -4 Int because racism is still prevalent for stuff like that.

>>A man is not very obviously stronger than a woman

Certainly a woman could be stronger that a man but females in general have lower total muscle mass than males, and also having lower muscle mass in comparison to total body mass.

jap.physiology.org/content/89/1/81

> a man is not obviously stronger than a woman

I mean, I am not saying there should be stat differences in the RPG (I just don't care) but you could try to be a little less obviously wrong.

yisssss

It's called FATAL

Worst case scenario it's a not so subtle hamfisted super preachy allegory to the BLM movement.

I'm not even giving okja a shot because I already know how it's going to be

Just from the trailer it looks like it's not gonna be quite that, thankfully.

What the fuck are you two chucklefucks wringing your hands about?

Regardless; trailer actually has me a bit hyped.

>wringing your hands
Yeah i dont think you know what that means

What is okja even about?

Having read the sold script before it got the David Ayer treatment, I'll give it a solid 6/10. It's definitely not Max Landis' best work. First half is pretty awwwwwwright, second half kinda drags.

Urban fantasy movie? Freaking A I have a reason to watch netflix

Have you been outside lately?

An "Evil Villain Inc" company genetically engineers a super pig to feed the masses and gain profits, and act like cartoon villains.

Where these pigs are born, a small chink child falls in love with a super pig, and realizes it's meant for slaughter. So she helps it escape. Then it's an epic adventure of escape and freedom as brave noble environmental activist groups come daring to the child and super pig's rescue, also exposing the company for the bad guys they are for daring to meet a free market's demands.

Haven't even seen it yet, and I think the reason why should seem obvious.

Aaaaand here's the Ayerized script. user delivers. Judge after reading, pls
dl.dropboxusercontent.com/content_link/ljzoQk83g7vY0n4QV6rFw21berBtFfFeD7jWZOWIydIwmH9GFtnxKKOcynqcM51F/file?dl=1

Nah, Max Landis cranked out the script after seeing that no-one in movies was making anything like this. He pitched it, producers and executives liked it, then they doctored it, etc. etc, movie-making happened.

I read an article in Empire about that. Apparently there's some stuff that Landis doesn't like about it, very vocally so, but the article didn't say what that was. I guess we'll have to wait for him to sperg out about it.

Either way, Shadowrun was never a part of the creative process of this thing. Which sucks, because there's no way a Shadowrun movie's going to be made now unless this thing goes gangbusters. People will say "oh it's too derivative", the fact that Shadowrun did it first be damned.

The trailer didn't go as hard into the District 9 tier
>THE ORKS AND ELVES ARE LIKE HUMAN MINORITIES YOU GUYS, LOOK AT MY CLEVER ALLEGORY
as I was expecting.

Having read the script, yeah, orks are magical blacks corralled in a ghetto profiled by the police. On top of that, there are regular blacks corralled in a ghetto profiled by the police.

Hello, I was cancelled 30 years ago, and what is this?

Neat. Will give it a look, sure.

Almost sounds like Bio-Meat except in that one the genetically engineered meat animals eat everyone in Japan.
and it was such a fun action buddy comedy I can't even believe it

Do you guys know nothing about Shadowrun?

>racemixing propaganda
These fucking kikes

It's fucking Shadowrun.

Same

Do we know how much of that is connected to lifestyle?

Like what would it look like if it was taken w/ women who worked in factories during WWII in US?

A Shadowrun movie could still be easily made on the Netflix or even Youtube tier.

>There's probably an Ork supremacist RPG where orks have ten strength and humans have five and elves have one.
Except it doesn't actually matter in practice, because the author forgot to include strength in any calculations.

How naive must you be to not have noticed the inherent physical advantages that men have over women? Especially regarding strength. Have you never spent time around females? It's pretty unfair how lopsided our biology is in that respect.

I'm not him, but there is some evidence to suggest that part of the reason that men tend to be more muscular than women, on average, is that parents engage in more physical play with boys than they do with girls, on average. Boys are often seen as less fragile than girls even at a very early age where there is pretty much no difference, so parents are more willing to be rougher.
On the other hand, parents , on average, engage in more talkative play with girls than with boys.

This then creates a feedback loop where boys are more likely to engage in sports throughout their schooling as they already have that experience in moving their bodies.

So while there probably are indeed some biological differences in strength, much of the is also likely the result social roles and expectations which lead to boys and girls receiving different focuses in early development, and throughout their lives.

I've heard this theory before and after doing some research I've concluded that it's a load of rubbish. The gap is arguably larger between male and female athletes who exercise all the time. Women's national hockey and basketball teams regularly get schooled by high school male teams. There's a reason that sporting competitions are segregated by gender. I think it's just a desperate excuse put out by people who don't want to accept that sexual dimorphism is prevalent in humans.

So literally magical negroes?

There is no evidence that nurture is the cause of humanity's sexual dimorphism.

I don't feel like watching it but you know you can watch things without agreeing to it

I agree, although there's a difference between avoiding a movie because you disagree with its message and avoiding a movie because its message is trite or preachy. Not him btw.

You're wrong.

Nearly all men are stronger than nearly all women, why do you think that we have separate events in the Olympics?

>grip strength
>a sound measure of total physical fitness and bodily strength
Rev up those correlations!

>why do you think that we have separate events in the Olympics?
Old fashioned sexism. Male fragility couldn't survive being defeated by a woman in sports.

>combinded
I'm sure this is trustworthy and of fine high quality.

Don't drag our side of the argument down by posting unsourced infographics with spelling errors you unbelievably dumb cunt.

The enviromentalists all come off as ineffective, weak, fags. Its almost 100% intentional

And the Corp wins in the end. If you're smart, you'll catch who the movie is REALLY making fun of

Just because female athletes exercise all the time in adulthood, doesn't mean their parents engaged in as much physical play with them, on average, when they were children, as they would have, on average, if they were boys.

Now I don't doubt that biology/nature plays a role in human sexual dimorphism, but you'd be naive to think that social factors don't exacerbate the divide. It's a feedback loop, a slight advantage in average strength means boys are slightly more likely to succeed in physical activities, so people expect boys to better in physical activities, so they play with them more physically, which makes them better at it, which further enhances those expectations etc.
From an evolutionary point of view, division of labour meant it was more efficient for groups to specialise into different tasks. If by random chance men proportionally were randomly allocated to more physically demanding tasks (maybe because of a random adaption giving more strength to men, but maybe literally just random allocation), this would put evolutionary pressure on humans to adapt and have males become stronger on average. Which gives them a comparative advantage on average in these physical tasks, which makes it more efficient to allocate them to this social role, so expectations cause them to be assigned to these roles, so there is more evolutionary pressure on them to adapt. And so forth until both sexual dimorphism and solidified gender roles.
Of course this is just a brief summary, but in essence biology is influenced and influences the environment, including social environment.
Now that our social environment has changed it's probable that we'll evolve differently in the future. Now that society is more egalitarian and strength is less important to evolutionary fitness for men, we might see the sexual dimorphism diminish. Then again, perhaps not.

As far as I've heard, the movie essentially criticises both sides (but perhaps more so the Corp).
At the very least it doesn't pretend it's all black and white. It recognises that reality is far more complex.

There's no data testing this hypothesis beyond shower thoughts and plenty to support it being a fundamental genetic divide. I'm disinclined to give it much merit until there's literally any supporting evidence.

Grip strength was strongly correlated with total muscle strength
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3448119/

Comes from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2011-2012
wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/2011-2012/MGX_G.htm

What data is there supporting it being a fundamental genetic divide to the exclusion of any kind of social influence?
We don't know enough about genetics to pinpoint exact genes responsible for sexual dimorphism, so it's not like we can manipulate them in an experimental way while controlling for social and environmental factors.

What we do know about genetics is that genes are often activated or deactivated by environmental factors. It is far more likely that a gene's expression will be influenced by environmental factors than it won't.

Furthermore, evolutionary models suggest that a slight change in starting conditions (a slight asymmetry in strength or slight asymmetry in population proportions) can lead to very different equilibria/outcomes (also known as basins of attraction) where the final mix of biological and social strategies can be vastly different. It can be seen through these models that the environment (both social and otherwise) and biology influence each other.

The nature vs. nurture debate has mostly been resolved in biology and psychology in favour of both having a large and important impact that can't be understated in either case.

>exposing the company for the bad guys they are for daring to meet a free market's demand

Listen user, I'm no saint either, but if you're okay with subjecting animals to living conditions so horrendous that it amounts to torture, just to make more money, you're a soulless, cold-hearted, detestable, monster of a human being. How do you justify this to yourself? Are you so enamored with the corrupt capitalist system we live in that you don't even give a second thought to the beings that are hurt by it?

What traits are important for evolutionary fitness for men nowadays? Intelligence?

What would you predict humans will be like in the future?

Okja is actually pretty tame, the supposedly obnoxious rant is done as a parody. Everyone in that movie is a parody.
The movie isn't so good, nevertheless, aside some shots that are nice.

Who are you to limit the ambition of another human being? What genuine authority do you have?

If there is profit to be made, it should be made by you. If you don't do it, someone else will do it instead and probably go even further than you. It's the nature of competition.

Go and live in the woods like the fucking animals you worship, if it means so much to you.

>If there is profit to be made, it should be made by you. If you don't do it, someone else will do it instead and probably go even further than you. It's the nature of competition.

I think this just comes down to a fundamental difference in our worldviews. I know that the whole "nature of competition" thing is how it works, but I don't think that's how it should work. Do you? You say:

>Go and live in the woods like the fucking animals you worship, if it means so much to you.

But it seems to me like you're the animalistic one, with the whole social darwinist, every man for himself thing. What you describe captures the essence of the cro magnon society.

Hmm. Well given that our society has become a lot more egalitarian in terms of gender and may continue to do so in the future, then to the extent that intelligence is important for the acquisition of resources, it is important for the evolutionary fitness of women as well. So I doubt that will lead to any kind of sexual dimophism. Although women do tend to get higher levels of education, on average, than men...

Regardless, it's pretty much impossible to predict the social and economic environment of the future. If we can get the singularity off, then one possible future may well be that we enter a post-work society in which economic status is no longer important for evolutionary fitness, and thus neither strength nor intelligence may have as much weight.

Currently though, women often rate a sense of humour almost about as high as looks in terms of attractiveness. So maybe that will become more important in the future.
Something I find funny, is that while women often find muscles on men attractive, the kind of muscle is more for looks than for strength. So maybe us men will become like peacocks with ridiculous but useless displays lolol

But in all seriousness, predicting the future is not my area of expertise, and generally even the 'experts' get it wrong. There are just too many factors. Most evolutionary biology is cases of 'how possible', of why things are the way they are.

Also I should mention evolution generally works on a scale of thousands of years for humans. Given how much society has changed in the last 100, who knows what'll happen to us in terms of evolution. By that time we may all be dead from global warming.

Orcs always were fantasy melanzane.

They're called tomboys.
If it's just a matter of childhood play then there should be at least some girls as strong as the strongest men, but there's not.

As I keep saying, it's not just a matter of childhood play. There are certainly biological factors involved. Men do produce more testosterone, which does improve muscle growth.
All I am saying though is environmental factors, like childhood play, are also likely to have a big impact.
Just as reading to your child and engaging in lots of talk and word play improves your child's language skills and reading comprehension, engaging in physical play improves your child's motor skills (plus exercise boosts testosterone levels).
If there is a systematic difference in how people play with boys and with girls, which there is, then that is likely to systematically contribute to differences commonly associated with sex and gender. And these differences reinforce how we play with our children.

If we all started playing with our children in the same manner on average, then of course there will still be sex differences, but it is highly likely they'll be less pronounced statistically.
Not to mention, there would be all sorts of other social factors that encourage men towards developing strength and women not to.
But the point still stands, I do agree it is not just social, there most likely is a genetic sex difference, but I argue it is not as large as people seem to assume, social/environmental factors are also important.

>I argue it is not as large as people seem to assume

I think it's the opposite. It's likely much larger the people assume due to the current feminist dogma.
I have a cousin the same age who is a girl, and we grew up together, doing almost everything with each other. She exercises more than me, but I'm still much stronger.
The strongest men are obviously much stonger than the strongest women too.

>A man is not very obviously stronger than a woman

What pro level sport do women and men compete on an equal footing? None.

Lol you think normies know wtf Shadowrun is?

Keep justifying your bullshit about being weak bro. Get to the gym and start lifting. Women mate with the muscle dude not the funny guy.

Be Kevin Hart. Be both.
Maybe don't cheat on your wife. or be a manlet.

>bright
>shadow

>RPG are a thing, no? GoT looks like a D&D thing.
>there is few D&D movies. We could make one
>wouldn't work. It would be generic as fuck
>hey, we have this cool RPG, Shadowrun, that is D&D meets Blade Runner.
>niiiice. Does the creators allow us to make a movie?
>why? Fuck them, make it modern times instead, and we avoid royalties.
>what we will call this shadowrun rip off?
>bright?

>cbssports.com/soccer/news/a-dallas-fc-under-15-boys-squad-beat-the-u-s-womens-national-team-in-a-scrimmage/

I'm 90% sure Max Landis has no idea what Shadowrun is

I can't believe there are people in this thread who seriously think that the fact that women lose to men in sports because of social factors and not genetics.
Since when Veeky Forums has feminists?
Seems like it trully became normie site with all consequences of this.

>By that time we may all be dead from global warming.
You do know that earth isn't going to turn into Venus right? There'll be massive unrest, economic collapse, and everyone in the 3rd world will starve to death, but humans will still be around.

pls provide olympic statistics for a sport in which women outperform men.

You are a cretin. That makes absolutely no sense at all.

The Corp comes off as a symptom of a greater evil, not necessarily as evil for its own sake

It would be alot more fun if you werent baiting, and you were actually retarded

>Max Landis

Fucking dropped.

Id imagine even an average inactive neet malr is still stronger without any real activity than a woman who walks to work and is moderately active.

I dont have the link, but this is correlated in performance studies done by the U.S army. I believe the bottom 50% of males outperformed the top 1% of female recruits. Look it up yourself though, cant find it on my phone but plenty of studies show the same information and I dont know a single one that contradicts the fact that a female stronger than a male is anything but a rare outlier, not the norm.

It seems unlikely to be a social thing, given circumstances such as "both males and females of this test volunteered to join the army" and seems more correlated to low testostetone, smaller frames, slower metabolisms and other genetic causes. Our current society is one that approves of contrarianism to social standards yet very little changes as a result to prove women are not at a notable genetic predisposition to lower strength.

Yeah, rich people...

Also in general, does physical strength really matters in society at this point? And does it cheapen sports to make it sound like upper body strength matters the most.

If I know I'm not going to like it, I won't watch it. By viewing it, I am in a way supporting it.

Testosterone is anabolic, and that's all you need to know to settle this line of questioning.

>Fun story that looks like a less futuristic Shadowrun
>the macguffin is a magic wand
>thread devolves into fucking /pol/ bullshit and -4 strength
Fuckin welcome to Veeky Forums 2017.

This isn't the best source to confirm your point. From the introduction:
"Both grip and knee extension strength have been used to characterize overall limb muscle strength of individuals. Whether this is appropriate has been questioned but not resolved."

From the conclusion:
"The findings of this study suggest that for healthy adults isometric measures of grip and knee extension strength reflect a common underlying construct, that is, limb muscle strength. Nevertheless, differences in activities requiring grip and knee extension strength and the findings of our analysis preclude a blanket advocacy for using either alone to describe the limb muscle strength of tested individuals."

All this tells me is that it's an open question whether grip strength is enough to assess overall strength. Most damningly, this article has not been cited on the topic of general muscle strength in five years.

Not saying you're wrong, exactly - I'd love to see a strong reference to end this question, but that paper is not it.

you havent been here long....

Whatever numbers you cite, he'll always counter with "It's because of how they were raised."

Nurturists sit comfortably in a position that is very difficult to falsify by design, and they mistake it as a strength of their ideas, rather than a weakness. It's a pleasant vision after all (everybody is naturally equal), and provides a windmill to struggle against (there must therefore be someone or something distorting that equality, which is unjust).

Not that guy, and I know it's an anecdote, but I'm 6'3, male, and my 5'3 roommate is noticeably stronger than I am. Mostly because I never worked a day in my life before age 25 and actively avoided all physical activity even as a child, while she has been waitressing since she was 17 (she's 24 now, I'm 26) and can carry an insane amount of plates and cups and shit. She also actively refuses to get men to carry things for her, when she physically can do it herself. She's not especially muscular, I'm just coming out of a very sedentary life.

Sadly given that I now work in a kitchen, I am starting to get stronger since I have to move. It sucks.

WHOOPS. Apologies. She's 5'8. So, y'know, she has some leverage. Just not as much as I do.

>I am starting to get stronger since I have to move. It sucks.
You sound like a low test pussy.

Max Landis is a pretentious nerd son of a famous filmmaker but a pretentious nerd is still a nerd. I'd not be shocked if he knows what it is, even if not in detail.

He might, but he would just deny. Calling himself a wellspring of originality in a creatively bankrupt modern Hollywood

Before 2010, the last movie John Landis made was fucking Blues Brothers 2000 in '98. Nepotism does get you through the door, but it doesn't get you sold scripts. And everyone they care to ask about him says that he writes more than is probably healthy. Instead of hanging out with friends on a long train ride, he was cranking out a story idea he'd had right then. He wrote Deeper on a flight when he was supposed to be working on his TV show.

That said, he is friends with Talisein Jade and Matt Mercer from Critical Role, and they're huge RPG nerds. However, as much as he talks about his influences and storytelling and what has affected him and how quickly he can think of a movie pitch (irrespective of quality, as he fully admits) you'd think live improv group storytelling would be something he mentions among comics, movies and pro wrestling. But no, it's never come up.

If he were to play, I'd peg him as the kind of person who would write a 20-page backstory and/or scrap a character every other session because he just had a new idea.

So, what level focus is that wand?

In the script it seems like wands are RNGesus perils of the warp/wild magic machines in the hands of a mundane, but for a "bright" (someone who can actually do magic themselves) they're nuke-tier power amplifiers

>nd/or scrap a character every other session because he just had a new idea
I know a guy like this, we basically have to peer pressure him not to do so because it brings the whole experience for everyone down since as a group we try for long term games and having to throw a new dude into the group every month is kind of stupid

What possesses a man to be like that?

dude,this thing IS shadowrun. Like, do you need an official logo in there to make it count?

Shorter people have smaller ROM.
You're also not representative of the average man, more like the bottom of the scale.
Someone else already posted the graph with the very bottom men being surpassed by the top women.

And if anything, if you got off your ass your testosterone would make you surpass her in no time. Doesn't matter if you were "physical" as a child/teen or not (this alters bone density but not strength).

Yeah both association with suicide squad and Max Landis has me worried now

I always kinda feel like I should be giving him one more chance.

His work on American Alien was great.

I like Ayer, the other films he's done have been good. SS I think was tanked by a mix of studio demands and then handing the final edit off to a third party.

It's closer to the bottom 5% of men outperforming the bottom 75% of women, IIRC. Still kind of surprising statistics but not quite as dramatic as literally all men are stronger than literally all women.