20813 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Xilizhra wrote...
As far as I can tell... the first one has no or little bearing on moral alignment, the second is opinion-based (Miranda seemed more in denial than horrified), the third is acceptable but just makes her refusal to admit anything to Jack more baffling, the fourth has nothing to do with the case, and the fifth hasn't even happened.

They may not all pertain to the conflict in question, but they all have something to do with Miranda's character. The fifth happens if you select the Renegade response in the first part of the conversation with TIM at the Collector base.

BTW, I'm not attempting to whitewash her. One aspect I like in her is that as a rule, pragmatism overrules ethical concerns if an important operation demands it, except in extreme cases. She is morally grey, she has a serious character flaw, and I like her that way, even if I don't like the flaw. But she is not the complete monster JakeMacDon paints her as.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 23 décembre 2010 - 08:48 .

[Xilizhra]

I mean that it hasn't happened by the time this conflict takes place (unless for some reason you do one of their loyalty missions after the base).

[Ieldra]

Xilizhra wrote...
I mean that it hasn't happened by the time this conflict takes place (unless for some reason you do one of their loyalty missions after the base).

My reponse to JakeMacDon was aimed at his general tendency to paint Miranda as black as he can, ignoring certain facts, inventing others and generally adopting the tone of a propagandist. The Jack/Miranda conflict is only a part of that.

[Xilizhra]

She herself isn't monstrous, but her actions there are... less than sensitive, intelligent, or even pragmatic.

[adriano_c]

JakeMacDon wrote...

The denier is attempting to abrogate and absolve a criminal organization of its greatest crime.  It is irrelevant if the denier is 30 and the survivor 80.  It is irrelevant that they weren't there.  The denier is tacitly supporting and apologizing for the organization that perpetrated the crime.  That makes them part of the crime, whether they were there or not, IMO.

Nah. That makes them either misguided or stupid, but hardly as categorically "guilty" as if they perpetrated the actual crimes in question like you're going on about. It's easy to obfuscate things when you're using a loaded example like the holocaust, not so much when you either shrink the scale or simply use something less emotionally charged. If I start trying to mitigate/defend/deny the damage done by Enron executives in 10-20  years, should I suddenly be considered to have partaken in the defrauding of countless people? If I start vehemently rejecting Charles Manson's guilt, does this "make me part of the crime"? Be serious...

[Ieldra]

Xilizhra wrote...
She herself isn't monstrous, but her actions there are... less than sensitive, intelligent, or even pragmatic.

Miranda was not detached *enough* in that conflict, I'll give you that. She chose words with the intent to wound. I think given their personalities, Jack rubs her the wrong way and vice versa, and when she was threatened she lost her cool and fought back instead of de-escalating. I don't like it, but I can understand it. It has, in fact, nothing to do with her stance on Cerberus and its atrocities. That was only the trigger. The fight was bound to happen one way or the other.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 23 décembre 2010 - 09:15 .

[Jackal904]

Epantiras wrote...




(btw feel free to repost this wherever you want, here on the forum)

First I was like , and then I was like .

Most of Fenris's fans are girls though, and they seem to like him mostly for his looks. Even though I don't see how he looks any different than every other elf in Dragon Age.

Razorsedge820 wrote...

most of the Mass Effect fanbase are whiny little kids with sensitive feelings.

Fixed.

Modifié par Jackal904, 23 décembre 2010 - 09:24 .

[adriano_c]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Jack's attitude *is* relevant to how the conversation goes. You know Jack - she'd barge into Miranda's office spoiling for a fight. Then she proceeds to threaten her with death by "smearing the wall" with her. Calling that "being rude" is somewhat of an understatement, don't you think? I wouldn't give such a person an apology even if I thought she deserved one (I'm not saying Jack doesn't deserve one).

It makes you wonder just how much of Miranda's reaction during that scene was simple posturing for appearance's sake. I mean, she's an authority figure on the ship after all, right? She's gotta project an image of strength, particularly in light of someone approaching her with Jack's in-your-face demeanour. Not exactly the opportune time to let someone get one up on you. It seems to me that no matter the subject matter of the conversation there wasn't any chance of her dropping the standoffish and evasive attitude to concede Jack a clear "point in her favour", let alone a moral victory.

She reminds me of that officer in Aliens, Lt. Gorman, in this respect.

[Ieldra]

adriano_c wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Jack's attitude *is* relevant to how the conversation goes. You know Jack - she'd barge into Miranda's office spoiling for a fight. Then she proceeds to threaten her with death by "smearing the wall" with her. Calling that "being rude" is somewhat of an understatement, don't you think? I wouldn't give such a person an apology even if I thought she deserved one (I'm not saying Jack doesn't deserve one).

It makes you wonder just how much of Miranda's reaction during that scene was simple posturing for appearance's sake. I mean, she's an authority figure on the ship after all, right? She's gotta project an image of strength, particularly in light of someone approaching her with Jack's in-your-face demeanour. Not exactly the opportune time to let someone get one up on you. It seems to me that no matter the subject matter of the conversation there wasn't any chance of her dropping the standoffish and evasive attitude to concede Jack a clear "point in her favour", let alone a moral victory.

I agree. Given Jack's personality, there was no chance this would end well. I don't know what would've happened had Jack approached her in a more reasonable manner, but at the very least Miranda would've acted more professionally about it instead of escalating the fight. As it was, the conflict turned into something like a fight over the pecking order Miranda couldn't afford to lose whatever the cost. That they're so opposite in personality didn't help.

[Xilizhra]

They're actually not that different: certainly, both are ruthless and in their own ways pragmatic, concerned with image, badly insecure, etc. It's their styles that clash so much.

[Collider]

Really? Jack and Miranda are polar opposites of each other. They're supposed to be.

[Ieldra]

Jack is the incarnation of "impulsive, wild, uncontrolled, primal", Miranda the incarnation of "detached, cool, controlled, rational". They *are* polar opposites.

[royceclemens]

No one has heralded the fact that Jackal904 has come back? Good to see you after all this time.

Now to the subject at hand.. Has anyone given consideration to the fact that maybe the argument started because Jack and Miranda finally see something of themselves in each other and would rather resort to violence than to accept such a thing in someone they hate?

It's been said on this thread that Jack and Miranda are similar, but after having played a Miranda romance playthrough not too long ago, I think they're more alike than even any of us had recently hypothesized, but let's get the surface stuff out of the way. Both failed experiments (Miranda as an all-too-rebellious daughter clone, Jack as Subject Zero), both on the run from an early age (Miranda from her father, Jack from Teltin), both trying to find some semblence of meaning in surrogate families (Miranda with Cerberus, Jack with everyone from outlaw colonies to cults).

Miranda's fans like to ring the pragmatism bell and I guess I agree with it, to a point. I've said elsewhere that half the stuff Miranda does in the game flies in the face of the pragmatism they like to wave as an attribute, but she's a pragmatist as long as she's occupied by something. If there's a problem to solve that's in front of her, she's icy and clinical. Jack is inverse. She's angry and fiery as long as she's occupied. Give her a trigger to pull and she's happy. But both of them, when they're in a room with themselves become moody and contemplative. And I think it becomes all too clear that they adopt their exteriors to shut out some kind of ever encroaching dark. If your life blows, stopping and thinking is a scary thing to do.

That the argument triggers after either loyalty mission is telling, I think. They've adorned opposite demeanors towards the same end and that may be viewed as somewhat of a betrayal to who they really are. So they see each other handling a similar situation in the way they would like to handle it but can't and it drives them nuts. Jack would like to rise above her crappy little pigsty of a life and sees Miranda handling the Oriana situation with a kind of grace. Miranda wants to fully engage her emotions after a lifetime of playing it cool and sees Jack render her horrible past to ashes with a nuclear bomb. The only thing that makes hating someone worse is mixing it with envy and that could be a way the fight could have been started by either of them.

But in spite of my long, dry, theoretical rambling, people on both sides of this vast divide must accept the fact that Jack and Miranda are of a piece. It's undeniable. Rant and scream all you want, it doesn't make it any less true. If you like one, then that implies a respect and sympathy for the other. If you can't, then you're just cherry picking attributes and aren't fully engaging with either character. TWO CENTS'D!

Modifié par royceclemens, 23 décembre 2010 - 10:29 .

[adriano_c]

royceclemens wrote...

So they see each other handling a similar situation in the way they would like to handle it but can't and it drives them nuts.

Can you walk me through the similarities? RIght now, what I see, is one looking for closure on a past life, while the other is looking to protect and ensure a present life.

[Ieldra]

royceclemens wrote...
But in spite of my long, dry, theoretical rambling, people on both sides of this vast divide must accept the fact that Jack and Miranda are of a piece. It's undeniable. Rant and scream all you want, it doesn't make it any less true. If you like one, then that implies a respect and sympathy for the other. If you can't, then you're just cherry picking attributes and aren't fully engaging with either character. TWO CENTS'D!

I must accept nothing. Their histories have similarities, their personalities also have some common element, but still they're not at all alike, even less "of one piece". Saying that denies the obvious dissimilarilites between them. BTW, you're pretty fast in claiming something to be "undeniable" - I'd disagree as a matter of principle.

As for sympathy, yes, I have that towards Jack. Respect? No. I don't respect someone who hasn't her emotions under control. In fact, it's *the* reason for my dislike of her. Forget her crimes, forget her enmity with my favorite character, it's the fact she's impulsive, wild, uncontrolled and casual about killing that makes me unable to trust her. She does earn my respect on the O4 mission, but she's still someone I'd prefer not to associate with.

[royceclemens]

adriano_c wrote...

royceclemens wrote...

So they see each other handling a similar situation in the way they would like to handle it but can't and it drives them nuts.

Can you walk me through the similarities? RIght now, what I see, is one looking for closure on a past life, while the other is looking to protect and ensure a present life.

Miranda gracefully handled her past with a level of aplomb and the promise of a better tomorrow with someone who will accept her.  Miranda wants her past gone and over with now and forever.  And the person one hates most in the world got to live the other's dream.  Think of it this way: If Dane Cook wins an Oscar, I'd probably throw a chair at him too.  And he'd probably call me a mistake for my trouble.

Now, Ieldra, what I said is still true.  Deny it all you want, but it's still fact.  After almost a year of detesting every fiber of Miranda's being I finally got on her wavelength.  Once I managed to do this, not only did I develop a deep and abiding fondness for her, but it helped strengthen my already vast liking for Jack.

The only really meaningful way that Jack and Miranda differ is the fake-as-hell fronts they each put up to ward people off.  Which is (gasp! shock!) ANOTHER THING THEY HAVE IN COMMON!  There's no difference at all between "I'm not looking for a friend, Shepard, stay focused on the mission"  and "Don't be my buddy."

Modifié par royceclemens, 23 décembre 2010 - 11:40 .

[adriano_c]

royceclemens wrote...

Miranda gracefully handled her past with a level of aplomb and the promise of a better tomorrow with someone who will accept her.  Miranda wants her past gone and over with now and forever.  And the person one hates most in the world got to live the other's dream.  Think of it this way: If Dane Cook wins an Oscar, I'd probably throw a chair at him too.  And he'd probably call me a mistake for my trouble.

Clearer! However, I disagree with the Jack being envious of Miranda's finesse part. She (Jack) got what she wanted, in a style of her own, and you can't really beat a bomb in terms of finality. If anything, it's more so that after said bomb her future remains very much up in the air. Miranda, on the other hand, at least got to walk away with something to hold on to.

But then again, who knows, maybe Jack wishes she were dainty.

[royceclemens]

I own't go so far as to say that Jack wants to be "dainty," but I do think Jack finds the ability to handle things in a more graceful fashion appealing. It's a weaker part to the theory, but I'm basing it on the neutral option you can take at the end of the conversation immediately following her loyalty mission. It's almost as though she knows the biggest thing standing between her and relating to someone who won't treat her like s--t is, well, her. The thing she put up to help her is starting to hurt her.

[adriano_c]

What would have made the scene more interesting (and your theory stronger) is if its location changed depending upon the order that the player completed the loyalty missions. So, the scene takes place in Miranda's office, directly after her mission, and in Jack's basement, after hers. Would be more suggestive of that mutual and confrontational envy.



But then again, Miranda going downstairs flies in the face of her nature...oh well!

[jtav]

Miranda and Jack are both childhood abuse victims with an expectation of being used. However, they reacted in diametrically opposite ways. Jack lashed out, and will do anything to avoid being used. Miranda embraced her tool status and used it to give her life meaning. Jack keeps people away with violent (physical or verbal) outbursts. Miranda freezes them out. They're photo negatives of each other.

[royceclemens]

Miranda and Jack both adopted personas to adapt and survive that they're both rebelling against. They both just can't stand it anymore. Someone as pragmatic as Miranda presents herself as doesn't keep Niket around, compromise the integrity of the mission to save her sister, inquire about conceiving a child or potentially romance Shepard.

Someone as thoroughly uncaring and abrasive as Jack presents herself as doesn't join a cult for acceptance, slaughter that cult to stop them from shaking down colonists, join an outlaw colony because "I thought they were like me" or, well, potentially romance Shepard.

Modifié par royceclemens, 24 décembre 2010 - 12:52 .

[jakeN7]

this is why i love this game

[Jackal904]

royceclemens wrote...

No one has heralded the fact that Jackal904 has come back? Good to see you after all this time.

Well thanks . It's good to be back. I've been too busy with school to keep up with this thread. But I'm on my winter break now so I'll probably hang around till next semester starts.

But regarding the current topic. I'm of the opinion that Jack and Miranda do share some similarities, but are obviously also very different from eachother. Jack is reckless and blunt, while Miranda is strategic and calm. But they both have pasts filled with exploitation that they want to leave behind, they were both designed to be some kind of exceptional "tool", and they both put up these fronts to prevent people from getting too close. Also they both desire genuine acceptance, but I guess most people do. But it seems more significant with Jack and Miranda.

[Pacifien]

Collider wrote...
Really? Jack and Miranda are polar opposites of each other. They're supposed to be.

They are alike in a most crucial factor: they are both stubborn.

[SirOccam]

JakeMacDon wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

JakeMacDon wrote...

I hate to invoke Godwin's Law here, but administering Auschwitz from Berlin makes you AS GUILTY as being a guard inside.

Miranda may not have been at Teltin, but she's as guilty as anyone there.

But did Miranda "administer" Teltin? Aren't they entirely different cells? I am genuinely curious, as I could easily be misunderstanding. But my understanding was that Cerberus cells are more or less independent of all the other ones.

That's nonsense.  The only reason the cells are seperate so as not to lead authorities back to TIM.  They're not independant of him or his most trusted, now would they be?

No, obviously TIM would know about them, but we're not talking about TIM, we're talking about Miranda. How do we know she knew about Teltin?

JakeMacDon wrote...

And besides, Miranda doesn't seem much older than Jack, so she'd probably be a child herself when that stuff was happening to Jack (that's purely speculation on my part; I have no idea how old either one is).

Her age then or now is irrelevant.  She knows who Jack is, she knows what Teltin is enough to apologize for it to Shepard - she knows.  To know and do nothing, not even have the common human decency to apologize when it costs you nothing  - makes you as guilty.

Not being willing to apologize in the middle of an argument makes you guilty? That's absurd. She obviously doesn't like Jack--and that's not a crime--and in the middle of an argument she's supposed to grovel for forgiveness for something that happened when she was 11?

I'm sure she does agree that what happened at Teltin was horrific. In fact, as mentioned, you can see Miranda's reaction for yourself if you take her to Pragia. But Jack isn't immune to hostility just because she's been through something horrible. Miranda isn't obligated to like Jack, and she's certainly not obligated to apologize for it every time they speak. You're basing all of this on ONE encounter. The fact that she doesn't apologize there somehow means she secretly approves of it or something?

Even if you want to persist in thinking that Miranda's a horrible person for not liking Jack or for not apologizing in that one heated moment, certainly holding her responsible for what happened to Jack is pretty clearly unreasonable, right?

JakeMacDon wrote...

I think a more apt analogy would be holding an Air Force general responsible for Abu Ghraib. They were all part of the US military, but one had nothing to do with the other.

I have to disagree.  Bush knew.  Cheney knew.  Their lieutenants knew.  They are as guilty as the men and women who did what they did at the prison. If you have the power to stop it and you do nothing - if you spin it or try to excuse it, you are as guilty as the torturers.  In some ways you are worse because you enable the basterds.

Uh, but we're not talking about Bush or Cheney or "their lieutenants," remember? It was some random Air Force general. Do you think everyone in every branch of the military should be held responsible for it?

I suspect you'll say no because you've now added "if you have the power to stop it and you do nothing" and "if you spin it or try to excuse it." Did Miranda have the power to stop it? She was 11, remember? Even if we talk about Teltin in general AFTER Miranda attained some kind of rank, you've no proof she had any knowledge of it whatsoever.

And did she try to spin or excuse it? I don't think so. All she's "guilty" of is getting angry at and having words with Jack, and getting a bit defensive. I probably would be, too, if I were her. If you want to hold TIM responsible, or even say Cerberus as an organization is tainted because of it, then fine, but as I said, there's no proof that Miranda had any knowledge of it or ever had the power to stop it. And she never, to my knowledge, defends anyone who wasn't actually responsible.

Don't get me wrong, Jack is probably my favorite companion out of anyone in ME2, but all this vitriol for Miranda based on outright assumption strikes me as odd.

JakeMacDon wrote...

If you want what I think of as a more apt analogy, think "Blackwater", and organizations such as they.  Independant, yet who contracted and paid them?  Agents of the US government.  So who is ultimately responsible for the crimes they committed?

This only works if you make some major assumptions, the same ones you've been making. Anyone who knew about what they did and had the power to stop it but didn't should be held accountable, but how do you know Miranda knew about it and had the power to stop it?

It's not that no one in the government should be held responsible, but certainly not everyone should be. If you want to lump Miranda in the group that should be held responsible, that's up to you I guess, but I haven't seen any sort of proof that she belongs there.