I STILL have no expectation for the movie. I don't see Margot Robbie as a good cast for the stereotypical "Barbie" character unless the movie's a spoof, unlike her role as Harley Quinn which as 100% genius.

But as a trailer -- the purpose of which is to hype up the fanbase AND pull people in to see a movie they otherwise might not -- this one's totally winning eyeballs IMO. Totally deliver more than any other trailers I've seen for many, many years.

Your video, Harley Quinn vs. Nightwing, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I was hoping it was a Harley Quinn cosplay.... and how to pick her up!

Sorry, I crippled Flash on my machine, so "missing plug-in"---
But I did find this...

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x28vqsi_shark-tank-fiberfix-presentation-eric-child-spencer-quinn-post-by-sameer-pimpalkhute_news?GK_FACEBOOK_OG_HTML
5=1

I can't wait to be disappointed. Hollywood will once again destroy and skew a character's image to appease the public. Talk to me when Harley Quinn gets the lasso of truth, breaks it's bounds and makes Wonder Woman her bitch. Amazonian queen my ass, this will be just another attempt to get 16 year old girls to drag their sex starved hormone men to shell out money to get laid, and it'll work. At least for the women. This is exactly why I bring my own popcorn bucket to the movies, drill a hole in the bottom, and hope she doesn't ask for extra hot butter.

I don't have a problem with many of these like Alec Guiness and Anthony Quinn in Lawrence of Arabia and after all they did have Omar Sharif. How many big name arab or more specifically bedouin actors were available at that time. And you can't expect a big blockbuster movie to go after no names

On the other hand some of these were cringe worthy and downright offensive ... Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's being a prime example.

@enoch

No, no, no, man, I would never downvote something because the speaker held an opinion about a certain topic that I disagreed with. Rather, I downvoted this because the subtext of the video is clear: you don't have to listen to what SJWs say because they are self-important blowhards who were coddled as children. Doesn't matter what the argument is that they are proposing. They are SJWs and therefore their ideas cannot be worth listening to.

And more specifically, if you pay attention to the images he is showing as he narrates his stance: you don't have to listen to what Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, etc. say about games (he's showing their pictures while decrying SJWs).

This is classic GamerGate tactics. Rather than actually debate the issues, which are the representation (or lack thereof) of women and other minorities in video games, he wants to dismiss the argument out of hand. You see it all the time in GamerGate supporter comments:

"Anita is a con artist looking to scam Kickstarter supporters out of their money."
"Anita is the feminist equivalent of a TV evangelist."
"Anita has hijacked feminism."
"Anita isn't even a real feminist."
"Anita's not really a gamer."

And so on.

They are desperate to get people to dismiss Anita's criticisms out of hand, mostly because even the most ardent haters can't deny there are problems with the representation of women and other minorities in ALL media, some of which are specific to video games.

It's all a big distraction from the issues. So what if everything GamerGate supporters allege is actually true? So what if she were stealing kickstarter money? So what if she is pushing some kind of feminist agenda in games? So what if she has appointed herself as a spokeperson for feminism?

Even if it were all true, the only important question is whether her arguments about the representation of women in games are valid and well-founded.

So, I downvoted this because essentially the author is advocating judging arguments on the basis of the arguer's reputation (for example, as an SJW) rather than on the merits of the argument itself. I see it as more blatant GamerGate propoganda trying to justify attacking the argument makers rather than dealing with the argument itself. Fuck that noise.

SJW is such a useless label at this point. It is now used purely as a cop out these days, a pejorative that supposedly gives you a free pass to ignore what someone is saying because clearly they are an coddled idiot (otherwise they wouldn't be an SJW).

I absolutely agree with you that justice, freedom of speech, freedom of dissent, etc. are important. And it is troubling that people in recent days are abusing the system to shut down dissenters. But this is the world we live in now and it really only reflects the political situation in Washington that has been going on nearly a decade now--lines drawn in the sand and ideas shouted down merely because they were spoken by someone on the wrong side of the line. I guess it isn't surprising that public debate is mirroring what we've been seeing in the capitol, only with the anonymity of the Internet allowing people to take it to a whole new level with doxxing, swatting, etc.

This Gamergate guy is getting sifted? One of the early Quinn harassers that created the "Burger and Fries" meme?

Hilarious. This place has fallen....

You're right with me up to the point we reach the kinds of censorship you happen to support.

What's the penalty for incurring the ire of the social justice elite? Well, only that you'll be branded a sexist or whatever by the entire gaming media, perhaps have your Twitter account banned or your videos taken down from YouTube, or maybe you'll just be arrested on false charges of harassment. It's a storm that a strong individual might weather, but from which any company will steer away automatically. Of course it's censorship.

Games are being censored (they came for the japanese bikini simulators and I said nothing...); social media is being censored: Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, Wikipedia and any number of even less reputable sites are being censored - all in response to social justice histrionics. This crybaby, zero-offence, closed-minded, closed-mouthed malaise is damaging to our culture: damaging to art, to academia, to journalism. And if you acknowledge the need for open expression, you will oppose it.

"There is more than one way to burn a book," wrote Ray Bradbury of interest groups taking offence, "...each ripping a page or a paragraph from this book, then that, until the day came when the books were empty and the minds shut and the libraries closed forever." You don't recognise any of this?

Yes, 'critics just don't have the talent to create' is a tired old fallacy and I regret echoing it, but there I was thinking particularly of the likes of Wu and Quinn: loathsome reptiles and degenerates whose own creative efforts are so miserably inept that to garner sales, patreon donations, and fraudulently positive reviews they resort to pretending themselves the brave minority voices raised against the misogynistic, LGBT-phobic, uni-racial establishment - in an industry that has never actually had any of those problems.

As for Anita Sarkeesian; that liar, mountebank, fascist collaborator, and 21st century Jack Thompson; that professional victim and demagogue who harnesses manufactured outrage for profit; or in the most generous possible light, that half-educated nincompoop who somehow rode a tide of hysterical activists-without-a-cause to a broadcast platform for her worthless, narcissistic rambling:
It isn't the fact of her fuck-witted critique to which the gaming community so righteously objects but the baffling inaccuracies and outright slanders therein, her self-promotion via false claims of harassment, her attacks on artistic expression and internet freedom.

And these are exactly the kind of sub-intellectual trash who will presume, against all standards of rectitude and conscience, to instruct their betters on what kind of jokes they're allowed to tell.

You never cede an inch to these fucking people. That's how you get Mary Whitehouse, or the Comics Code Authority, or McCarthy, or the FCC, the BBFC, the OFLC, the IWF.

Zoe Quinn? What the FUCK are you even on about, you incredible heap of crazy?

Here's a quick clue, since communication what other human beings isn't your strong point: if someone has to go to Google to understand your ravings, you haven't made a point -- instead, you've done the textual equivalent of shitting your pants.

One: Faux. For the love of god, faux. FAUX. Please. I'm begging you. Please. If nothing else, this.

Secondly: Why are you pretending that Sarkeesian is the 'face of female empowerment' in anything, and why does that put special demands on her and, I guess, on her twitter account? To some, Sarkeesian is the face of feminism in gaming, to others it would be, I dunno, Leigh Alexander, or Zoe Quinn, or [fill in feminist gamer names here because I don't care about feminist gamers or gaming in general]. I am entirely convinced that Sarkeesian deplores the fact that Cytherea - that anyone - was raped, regardless of profession. There is absolutely no reason for you, or anyone else, to demand that she respond in any way, in this specific case. I would guess that there are plenty of other people who are equally opposed to rape - you, for example - who still haven't done shit to support this specific victim, or the one before her or the one after her. That fact doesn't undermine your general anti-rape stance.

Your ridiculous outrage doesn't answer the question: Anita Sarkeesian is, and is known for being, a feminist critic of video games, gaming culture, and the depiction of women in games. Since when is it part of her job description to respond to every call for support she gets over twitter? She can choose to do so, as a human being, but neither you nor I have any reason to demand that she does so. Last I checked, this horrendous crime was an actual rape and not a 'trope' in gaming media. It's kind of outside of her area of professional expertise.

Also: Faux.

The problem with Anita Sarkeesian is that she's essentially, a hack. The whole gamergate incident has been one ugly affair, and absolutely there are valid points on both sides. But Sarkeesian is still someone who knows nothing about games, doesn't like games in the slightest, but tries to pass off as a gamer. And there are videos of just 4 years ago, of her saying to an audience she doesn't like videogames, she's not a fan. This person who doesn't even like or play videogames comes in, and starts pointing fingers around saying that this and that are wrong and that this and that must be changed. That, I think, more than anything is what pisses gamers off.

You wanna know what I think is the problem? What REALLY made this happen? Not the Zoe Quinn scandal. That was just the event that ignited the powder keg. A terrible event obviously. Her private life is nobody's business (unless it was absolutely true she got reviews from sleeping around with game journalists, which it wasn't).

The actual powder keg, was the CONSTANT barrage of pseudo-feminist and patronizing articles on sites like Kotaku. Day in and day out. A site for gamers who was, essentially, constantly offending their target audience.