I mean by the by it was a funny movie and I liked it. But when you get right down to it, it was a hail-mary attempt by Matel to switch the narrative about their toys being unhealthy for young women's body image. I'd say thats the only consistent message it had.

Do you think so? Consider the subtext, not just the genders of the actors.

The conflict of the film is, quite literally, an oppressed sex lashing out at the society that oppressed them and taking control. The resolution is the previously dominant sex regaining control and putting the oppressed sex back in their former, subservient positition.

It is kind of funny that the movie's ultimate message was that a society with strictly enforced gender roles and a dominant sex is good.

Also where was the queer representation? They showed magic earing Ken but no gay characters? Really??

Tbh at some point GW kinda forgot that the imperium was supposed to be satire.

Bro whose decision was it to put Yaddle front and center on that promo art

I don't know if "determination" is necessarily the right word there. Might I suggest something closer to "rage and terrror induced frantic stupidity"?

I'll check those out! I find the subject super interesting.

Just in case you didn't know, there was a big cache of gnostic texts found in Nag Hammadi but the discovery got overshadowed by the dead sea scrolls. They were very cool to look into and shed a lot of light on pre-romanized Christianity.

I wish i had something off the top of my head but I'm mostly basing this off what i remember from uni lectures.

That being said if you look up early Christianity you'll see that women filled the roles of priests and were often responsible for spreading and maintaining the faith before its roman adoption. You can even even see this in the bible where the earliest chronological chapters are extremely sympathetic to women, then become less and less so as time goes on.

I'll see if i can find a specific reference for you later today.

Exactly. In keeping with my other comments, that's why some early christian sects actually viewed Eve as a hero in the story, because she freed them from ignorance... You know, back when christianity was driven by women and wasn't just roman ideology wearing a Jesus skin mask.

I think thats a pretty solid interpretation. The gnostics have other points too though, like the vast difference in personality between the vengeful old testament god (which they claim is a separate entity) and the loving new testament god.

I wrote an essay about that once. Adam and Eve were meant to chill in the garden for literally all of eternity but were still created as curious, fallible beings with no knowledge of evil. Ergo it was logically impossible that they wouldn't have eaten the fruit eventually, whether that was in 3 days or 3 million years.

Only kinda related but one of the reasons the early christian gnostics gave for questioning the identity of the old testament god is this exact thing. God is supposed to be omniscient but for some reason is confused about what happened with the apple and doesn't know where Adam is hiding... Interesting to think about.... Maybe. Idk.

Ok thats interesting, I wonder why...

I looked up the title and it seems like there are versions of this painting with the more appropriate colours. I'm not sure if that means this post is wrong or if someone else made edits.

Something is kind of off here. The subject matter and the style are Pre-Raphaelite but the colours seem too muted and the shadows should be darker.

I'd help but I just don't think about the roman empire all that often unfortunately

Dont stop, Pugjesus. You're like half the content on this website.

"The 2016 Christian Science Monitor article "The Source Code of Political Power", by Simon DeDeo of Indiana University, used the debate as one example of how Wikipedia is an evolving system of ideas and found comparison to the Talmud."

Astounding. I, for one, am in favour of Wikipedia as a new religion.

Thats awesome! Do they offer the whole catalogue?