|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 29, 2017 1:58:42 GMT
Well unfortunately, reality does not support your theory. Speaking of genre movies not slice of life or experimental. I mean a company like old Hammer or other English studios. These days the Limehouse Golem is called a British film even though the director is from Florida. I wish I was wrong-truly but unfortunately thr globalist agenda infects all the distribution. Fortunately I can watch lots of movies from earlier eras before the net was tightened.
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Oct 29, 2017 18:17:04 GMT
Well unfortunately, reality does not support your theory. Speaking of genre movies not slice of life or experimental. I mean a company like old Hammer or other English studios. These days the Limehouse Golem is called a British film even though the director is from Florida. I wish I was wrong-truly but unfortunately thr globalist agenda infects all the distribution. Fortunately I can watch lots of movies from earlier eras before the net was tightened. What genre you want? They are all represented every year. Number 9 Films is a good example of the small studios still about to produce movies. Not sure where you get this idea that the director has to be from the country where the studio operates. MGM made Dr Zhivago with a British director, Egyptian leading man, filmed it in Spain, and it was based on a novel by a Russian Jew. But it's still an MGM movie. Hammer is back and making movies by the way. They made one of my all time favorite movies in 2010 ( Let Me In) and you can watch their latest in a few months: www.imdb.com/title/tt1072748/
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 29, 2017 19:18:23 GMT
What genre you want? They are all represented every year. Number 9 Films is a good example Way ahead of you. Number 9 made Limehouse Golem which is advertised as a British film though the director is from Florida and it is about as Western European in idea as the last Godzilla picture. Its a globalist company unfortunately. Either by choice or design. Hammer is back with a globalist/liberal agenda. Longtime Hammer fans even joked at a recent plot synopsis for an upcoming film "single mother deals with--" The response was: "Single mother? Again?" All the films involve female leads or male characters that are failures in some way. Old Hammer was much more varied in character and plot which is why they keep re-releasing the films--it has a faithful audience who appreciate regional European film. Ignoring the fact that old Hammer made a dozen or more films a year--new Hammer is lucky to get one made every 3 years.
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Oct 29, 2017 20:03:27 GMT
What genre you want? They are all represented every year. Number 9 Films is a good example Way ahead of you. Number 9 made Limehouse Golem which is advertised as a British film though the director is from Florida and it is about as Western European in idea as the last Godzilla picture. Its a globalist company unfortunately. Either by choice or design. Hammer is back with a globalist/liberal agenda. Longtime Hammer fans even joked at a recent plot synopsis for an upcoming film "single mother deals with--" The response was: "Single mother? Again?" All the films involve female leads or male characters that are failures in some way. Old Hammer was much more varied in character and plot which is why they keep re-releasing the films--it has a faithful audience who appreciate regional European film. Ignoring the fact that old Hammer made a dozen or more films a year--new Hammer is lucky to get one made every 3 years. Most of that is just in your imagination. Let Me In featured a male and female lead where both were beset by personal problems. The "little girl" thing where she killed the bullies would of course fit your imagined agenda if you just ignore the rest of the movie. If Hammer released their " Women Without Men" today you would claim it was due to a liberal agenda of course. www.imdb.com/title/tt0049018/And again....MGM made films that had nothing to do with the USA all the time...but they were still made by a US studio. That goes for every studio. Your claim that a studio should only hire directors from their country has NEVER been a thing in cinema. US studios hired Hitchcock all the time...and he made US films. So your excuse about Number 9 films is just that...an excuse. Does it bother you that Hammer films typically cast US leads in its movies in the 50s? Apparently not. You are going to have male characters fail more often in literature simply because males are stronger, more aggressive, and more driven in general. Drama has to play off reality. If males and females were truly equal physically and in nature, then there would be more reason to have females in "fail" scenarios. If you are upset that artists are liberal....well that's nothing new. They are frequently douchey about it too. I've got no love for globalists either. Actors have long pretended that they are "changing the world"....but of course their egos create that idea. New Hammer came from nothing in a new era. They also are striving for something different today than just churning out cheap monster movies like they did in the 50s. Whether you like it or not is a different thing, but they can't roll these movies out on an assembly line like they did back then.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 29, 2017 20:17:40 GMT
Let Me In featured a male and female lead where both were beset by personal problems. The "little girl" thing where she killed the bullies would of course fit your imagined agenda if you just ignore the rest of the movie. If Hammer released their " Women Without Men" today you would claim it was due to a liberal agenda of course. Thanks for cluing me in to another Beverly Michaels films, but I take it you have never seen Hammer's Slave Girls. Let Me In is about a weak male character. Woman in Black is also about a weak male character. I dont mind weak male characters as long as they are not ubiquitous. Unfortunately they are in this type of genre film. And this is one fan section I know very well--fans of old Hammer are not very fond of new Hammer.
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Oct 29, 2017 20:45:11 GMT
Let Me In featured a male and female lead where both were beset by personal problems. The "little girl" thing where she killed the bullies would of course fit your imagined agenda if you just ignore the rest of the movie. If Hammer released their " Women Without Men" today you would claim it was due to a liberal agenda of course. Thanks for cluing me in to another Beverly Michaels films, but I take it you have never seen Hammer's Slave Girls. Let Me In is about a weak male character. Woman in Black is also about a weak male character. I dont mind weak male characters as long as they are not ubiquitous. Unfortunately they are in this type of genre film. And this is one fan section I know very well--fans of old Hammer are not very fond of new Hammer. I don't think you understand Let Me In. It's also about a weak female character. (she's so weak that she has a male adult character do her killing for her and appears lost without him) See how you could attach any agenda to it? The male character is actually the lead of the movie in screen time by a mile. And he has a character progression that you left out. You talk about him at the beginning of the movie an ignore where the character went after that. He actually stands up to his bullies by the end and confronts deep moral questions about the very nature of good an evil. It's all about his emotional journey.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 29, 2017 21:05:37 GMT
He actually stands up to his bullies by the end "During swim class, Kenny, his older brother, and their friends ambush Owen and begin to drown him, only to be dismembered by Abby." Sounds like she gave him a hand. The basic Liberal idea is that the weak male lead needs an alien to help him or to achieve manhood (similar situation with Pirates of the Caribbean 4 actually--the weak male needs the alien--mermaid-to help him). That's the agenda. Compare it with the theme of Dracula. An alien--a corrupt aristocrat foreigner--seeks to attack a community and enslave its women. A group of men combine forces to destroy him. Hammer films of old usually had the theme of a community being attacked by either a sick insider (a deformed evil aristocrat) or an outsider (Dracula, or a foreign threat). There were stories like the Reptile where the theme concerned a man who went outside of his community--got into trouble with the foreigners, gets cursed,--but usually in the end there is some redemption element. In the case of the Reptile the father attempts to correct his wrongs. The community is restored. It is not a failure message. Plague of the Zombies was about a local aristocrat who goes off to study the occult, and then uses voodoo to enslave his local population. In that case it is an outsider(but an Englishman) who disposes of the problem. In other cases like Dracula Has Risen From the Grave--the story is about a disillusioned priest who joins forces with an atheist. I have a bet going that we will never see a traditional version of Dracula done by a major studio because the idea is so distasteful to the studio owners. They have to make him sympathetic in some way (with the exception of a Monster Squad or Blade 3 where he is a minor character or is facing a non traditional hero). Reportedly, Carl Laemmle was disinterested in adapting Dracula and it is understandable-since the idea is about a community under attack from a foreigner. The message hit too close to home for him-being foreigner himself. Hollywood majors preferred stories where the community is sick and the outsider is the salvation (the more foreign the better).
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Oct 29, 2017 21:25:46 GMT
He actually stands up to his bullies by the end "During swim class, Kenny, his older brother, and their friends ambush Owen and begin to drown him, only to be dismembered by Abby." Sounds like she gave him a hand. The basic Liberal idea is that the weak male lead needs an alien to help him or to achieve manhood (similar situation with Pirates of the Caribbean 4 actually--the weak male needs the alien--mermaid-to help him). That's the agenda. Perfect example of how people only see what they want to see. Did you notice how Owen helped Abby to recover her humanity? Of course not...that would be the male helping the female and wouldn't fit your agenda. I guess you didn't notice how Thomas was killing for Abby? (hint: he's a white male) And how she went to the hospital to see him and then afterward went to Owen's room for comfort? Now...a feminist would see that and claim the opposite of course. "The female is portrayed as dependent on the male characters emotionally!" They would immediately be outraged that Abby could not live without a male in her life. I know how that all works. Everyone with an agenda can find things to support it because that's ALL they look for. Oh...and of course racists would see Let Me In and start complaining that the cast was all white. All they see is skin color when they watch movies.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 29, 2017 21:38:00 GMT
Perfect example of how people only see what they want to see. Did you notice how Owen helped Abby to recover her humanity? Of course not...that would be the male helping the female and wouldn't fit your agenda. I guess you didn't notice how Thomas was killing for Abby? (hint: he's a white male) Do you even comprehend how you are supporting my argument? Thomas is a white male failure. How does he refute the theory? He is a violent and angst-ridden character--very much in the spirit of what Lovecraft referred to in his lament about New York literature where neurosis was a dominant ingredient. Everything you said fits the definition of the Liberal ideology and social engineering agenda.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 21:48:34 GMT
Primemovermithrax Pejorative : You are aware that Let Me In is a remake, right? The original film is a Swedish production called Låt den rätte komma in, or "Let the Right One In", which is based on a book by John Ajvide Lindqvist, a Swedish author. The original story was developed well outside of the American Hollywood machine.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 29, 2017 21:58:26 GMT
Primemovermithrax Pejorative : You are aware that Let Me In is a remake, right? The original film is a Swedish production called Låt den rätte komma in, or "Let the Right One In", which is based on a book by John Ajvide Lindqvist, a Swedish author. The original story was developed well outside of the American Hollywood machine. Yes I know. The Limehouse Golem was too-but it still fits the ideology. The fact that it gets picked for publication and or film production begs the question--were there other stories that were more traditional (aka audience friendly) that got rejected? This was the belief of Lovecraft in the 30s and Capote in the 60s. That the media companies had a specific taste by heritage and they shut out voices that didnt represent their ideas. Its a difficult theory to refute. Even films that bypassed Hollywood like the Amicus Burroughs films starring Doug McClure-have been held up for ridicule in the major media (because the lead is a non neurotic white male hero character).
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Oct 29, 2017 23:10:25 GMT
Should I name a hundred Tom Cruise movies where he is the hero and practically perfect?
|
|
|
Post by blockbusted on Oct 30, 2017 1:38:23 GMT
There is, just not as successful and loaded with cash. But they're there. You and harpo are reminding me of a pair of cats, and primemover is the mouse. That would be an insult to mice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 1:42:39 GMT
Should I name a hundred Tom Cruise movies where he is the hero and practically perfect? Speaking of, what is primemover's obsession with having perfect characters? He does know they've been telling stories about flawed characters since forever, right? Basically everyone in Greek mythology, and pretty much any other mythology, are riddled with character defects. Zeus can't keep it in his toga, Hercules is a psycho, Achilles is an ego-tripping brat, and so on. Or in The Bible, King David, despite being a warrior king hero, gives into his lusts for another man's wife. Shakespeare's protagonists are certainly no Saints. So this whole "Hollywood makes flawed characters to push an agenda" is just dumb.
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Oct 30, 2017 8:52:44 GMT
Perfect example of how people only see what they want to see. Did you notice how Owen helped Abby to recover her humanity? Of course not...that would be the male helping the female and wouldn't fit your agenda. I guess you didn't notice how Thomas was killing for Abby? (hint: he's a white male) Do you even comprehend how you are supporting my argument? Thomas is a white male failure. How does he refute the theory? He is a violent and angst-ridden character--very much in the spirit of what Lovecraft referred to in his lament about New York literature where neurosis was a dominant ingredient. Everything you said fits the definition of the Liberal ideology and social engineering agenda. And you just illustrated again how people tend to only concentrate on things that support their agenda while ignoring everything that does not. Namely that EVERYONE in the movie is a failure at some point. You of course don't want to think about how Owen helps Abby or how Abby cannot bear to live without a male presence in her life. (even though she would be much safer if she lived alone far away from people) And of course there is that Romeo and Juliet sub-plot running through the film too. THE classic male/female story written by a ....white male. (one of the all time white males whom liberals attack) They even changed the male character from the one being pursued in the Swedish version to being the pursuer in the British version. I guess you'll see that as an attack on males or something. And the Swedish version had a subplot about a drunk loser male character who is verbally abusive to his girlfriend and who somehow starts acting like Van Helsing. Total loser and not very likable. Frankly he came off as almost a villain character who's sole motivation was to kill the Eli character. LMI changed him to a cop who has a real logical motivation and is actually a sympathetic character. (he's even religious!) He was not motivated by a desire to kill Abby...he was there to investigate a crime. And thus, he was an excellent way to explore the idea that there is no black and white evil and good. He is actually meant to be sympathetic to make it difficult to root against him in his encounters with Abby. The verbal abuse toward a girlfriend is taken completely out of the movie. Kind of odd for a "man hating agenda", wouldn't you say? And how about how LMI totally got rid of the "castrated male" subplot? You will need to explain how they would pass that up. That's low hanging fruit for an "anti male agenda". Wouldn't they want to have both characters really be male for some kind of "homosexual agenda" or to show that "true love is not sexual"? Also along those lines, LMI changed the caretaker character from a recent entry into the life of the girl vampire and is motivated by pedophilia to a lifelong companion who is with her due to love. The vampire in the Swedish version doesn't seem to care that much about him while Abby is shown to have more affection for him. Why would they lose that obvious opportunity to paint the male as a predator whom she barely cares about? Does Hammer even know about this agenda you claim they have? Again, a feminist would see it exactly the opposite of how you do because they would only see the parts that supported their agenda. All they would see is a female character who cannot be independent of males. If you only look for one thing....that's what you find. I'm surprised you haven't latched onto one particular part of the movie as a matter of fact. Primemovermithrax Pejorative : You are aware that Let Me In is a remake, right? The original film is a Swedish production called Låt den rätte komma in, or "Let the Right One In", which is based on a book by John Ajvide Lindqvist, a Swedish author. The original story was developed well outside of the American Hollywood machine. Well in the mind of the conspiracy theorist, Hammer only chose to make the movie because the story fit their agenda. Never mind that the whole thing was the idea of the Swedish producers. articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/30/local/la-et-let-me-in-20100930
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Oct 30, 2017 8:55:11 GMT
Should I name a hundred Tom Cruise movies where he is the hero and practically perfect? Speaking of, what is primemover's obsession with having perfect characters? He does know they've been telling stories about flawed characters since forever, right? Basically everyone in Greek mythology, and pretty much any other mythology, are riddled with character defects. Zeus can't keep it in his toga, Hercules is a psycho, Achilles is an ego-tripping brat, and so on. Or in The Bible, King David, despite being a warrior king hero, gives into his lusts for another man's wife. Shakespeare's protagonists are certainly no Saints. So this whole "Hollywood makes flawed characters to push an agenda" is just dumb. Not to mention that these flawed characters tend to be the most interesting due to having the main character arc. And of course are usually the focus of the story.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 30, 2017 9:11:36 GMT
If you only look for one thing....that's what you find. But the whole point of my initial point was that you never see a non neurotic independent male character anymore. Not Western European white anyway. You have said nothing to negate that point. You basically say: "oh but the two characters help each other.." yeah that's great but that isnt what I was talking about. I stand by the original point until you can find an example that fits what I was referring to.
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Oct 30, 2017 9:42:11 GMT
If you only look for one thing....that's what you find. But the whole point of my initial point was that you never see a non neurotic independent male character anymore. Not Western European white anyway. You have said nothing to negate that point. You basically say: "oh but the two characters help each other.." yeah that's great but that isnt what I was talking about. I stand by the original point until you can find an example that fits what I was referring to. And again you'll only see what you want to see just like everyone else. You'll find a flaw in any male character and ignore any flaw in a female character. Your cherry picking Let Me In was the perfect example of how that works. You only saw the flaws in the male characters and ignored the obvious flaws in the female character. (that's right...they actually minimized the other female character from the original) The fact that flawless characters are boring and make for terrible stories won't enter into your thinking of course. - Peter Quill being the leader and main character of the Guardians of the Galaxy will be dismissed because he's not perfect. Gamora is actually more powerful physically (you will use that one) but looks to him to lead her.
- Logan rescuing a female character from danger won't count either because he's got issues.
- Baby Driver making a hero out of a white male instead of the minority or female characters won't count either (you'll find a way).
- Blade Runner being about a male character being the hero while a female character is the villain won't count of course. TWO male characters are even are motivated to keep a female character safe. Feminists of course are angry because he has a female "slave" and uses a female sex-bot. That latter one really set feminists off. But you have the opposite agenda so I can't wait to hear your spin on it.
- John Wick won't count either I guess...for reasons?
- I'm assuming Tom Cruise was the hero of the Mummy. I do know the villain was female.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 30, 2017 11:34:10 GMT
And again you'll only see what you want to see just like everyone else. You'll find a flaw in any male character and ignore any flaw in a female character. Yeah since the point is about a particular type of character-why would I care about other types of characters when they do not represent what I was referring to? It's like me saying I never see Bugs Bunny anymore and you say but you are only focusing on him, what about Daffy Duck? I am not talking about flaws in female characters--we could discuss the absence of a flaw in a black character played by Morgan Freeman or Samuel Jackson but that is just a distraction from the original point even if it would be interesting to examine. The central character in Scream has various issues. But I am more interested in her father-why is he still tied up at the end-and how did she get him to the closet without untying him when Stu had to struggle to get him into the kitchen in the first place? Its as if they had to treat him as a prop in order to keep him subdued so he did not have a role in the resolution of the film.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 16:01:58 GMT
Speaking of, what is primemover's obsession with having perfect characters? He does know they've been telling stories about flawed characters since forever, right? Basically everyone in Greek mythology, and pretty much any other mythology, are riddled with character defects. Zeus can't keep it in his toga, Hercules is a psycho, Achilles is an ego-tripping brat, and so on. Or in The Bible, King David, despite being a warrior king hero, gives into his lusts for another man's wife. Shakespeare's protagonists are certainly no Saints. So this whole "Hollywood makes flawed characters to push an agenda" is just dumb. Not to mention that these flawed characters tend to be the most interesting due to having the main character arc. And of course are usually the focus of the story. Exactly. Stories where the hero had to learn a lesson, too, are as common as ones like Beowulf.
|
|