RPS: Why that woman? A number of people were fairly taken aback by the fact that she was a scantily clad and in a compromising position, which is understandable. However, the camera panned out to reveal that her arms were grotesque scythes, which struck me as making it less about sex appeal and more about creating a striking image of destroyed beauty by way of rampant technological augmentation. Is that what you were going for?

Imagine an alternate reality where “pointless nudity” is replaced with “chocolate pudding”. You’re in a fantasy setting everyone’s wearing full armour and swigging mead and then for no reason we get a lingering shot of a guy eating chocolate pudding. Why? What’s the purpose? Does it forward a plot or expand the character? No. It’s just a guy eating chocolate pudding totally out of place. Now you’re watching a gripping crime drama, the undercover cop agrees to meet the gun runner, there’s a tense scene as they approach a meeting point. Inside as they sit down it turns out to be a chocolate pudding club. Dozens of people just sitting about eating chocolate pudding, lingering shot as a man licks his spoon clean. Does it add to the scene or detract? Is the viewer supposed to be focused on the characters and their meeting or are they supposed to be distracted by the chocolate pudding.

Should the creator not be expected to justify his use of chocolate pudding?

Tuco says:

” Why that woman? A number of people were fairly taken aback by the fact that she was a scantily clad and in a compromising position, which is understandable”

Jesus Christ, really?

Nameless1 says:

It’s RPS baby, where every time their editors see a woman not fully clothed they HAVE TO (stupidly) bitch about sexism. And put It at the top of every dedicated interview.
It’s probably the tenth article I read here like that, the last one at this point.