|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 16, 2023 0:24:38 GMT
I like to take on the side of the underdog, so I’m going to agree with Formersamhd. What are his positions again? That any movie or show is automatically called woke if it has a female or POC lead. Except if that lead is very attractive but not super smart (like Wonder Woman). And except if the lead is imperfect and struggles to overcome their trials and tribulations (like Atomic Blonde). And except if the movie wasn't famous or didn't make money (like Red Sparrow). And except if the lead is actually very likeable (like Alita). And except if the lead of the movie is played by someone very famous (like Charlize Theron though for some reason this doesn't apply to Scarjo in Black Widow) And except if that show has a very famous side character (like Stallone or Christopher Waltz but apparently not guys like SLJ, Hemsworth or Arnie) But an exception to that rule above is when said lead needs help from her side characters (like A Quiet Place) But an exception to that exception is if there are more female/POC leads than there are famous side characters (like Terminator Dark Fate but apparently not Creed) But an exception to that exception's exception is when the side character doesn't get a lot of marketing (like Hemsworth in Ghostbusters but not Waltz in Alita) Then there's this weird exception of when the title character doesn't have a name (like Tenet) Another weird exception is if the movie is critically panned (like Without Remorse), so I guess a movie can only be woke if it's critically praised? And another exception is Aquaman because... reasons. And another exception to that exception is.... actually I'm struggling to keep up with all the exceptions that he mentioned. From what I can tell, he seems to be saying that a movie is automatically woke when they make the lead character an insufferable Mary Sue without any clear weaknesses or flaws, doesn't struggle with anything, doesn't need help with anything, absolutely outshines all her co-stars, and gets tons of marketing showing them doing so. And you know what, I think I actually agree with that. I just wish he'd come out and say it clearly instead of tying himself in knots with conflicting examples. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 16, 2023 1:28:35 GMT
I like to take on the side of the underdog, so I’m going to agree with Formersamhd. What are his positions again? From what I can tell, he seems to be saying that a movie is automatically woke when they make the lead character an insufferable Mary Sue without any clear weaknesses or flaws, doesn't struggle with anything, doesn't need help with anything, absolutely outshines all her co-stars, and gets tons of marketing showing them doing so. And you know what, I think I actually agree with that. I just wish he'd come out and say it clearly instead of tying himself in knots with conflicting examples. IE, it's woke when the female lead gets everything a typical Male lead gets. |
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 16, 2023 1:45:34 GMT
From what I can tell, he seems to be saying that a movie is automatically woke when they make the lead character an insufferable Mary Sue without any clear weaknesses or flaws, doesn't struggle with anything, doesn't need help with anything, absolutely outshines all her co-stars, and gets tons of marketing showing them doing so. And you know what, I think I actually agree with that. I just wish he'd come out and say it clearly instead of tying himself in knots with conflicting examples. IE, it's woke when the female lead gets everything a typical Male lead gets. Most typical male leads are highly flawed or go through a whole load of trials and tribulations. The stuff that Atomic Blonde went through is fairly standard for male leads yet you claimed that made her pathetic which in turn didn't make the movie woke. It's also very common for male heroes to dig deep and find additional strength whenever their loved ones are harmed or put in danger. Think John Wick when his dog is harmed or Dom Torreto whenever his family is in danger. Yet for some reason you have problems when Wonder Woman gets the same "power up" after Steve Trevor died. You also seem to disregard female movies that are, in your words, a failure. Red Sparrow, Bird Box, etc. That was your excuse for why they were not woke yes? Yet you fail to realize that there are a lot of shows and movies out there with male leads that also fail. Then you have a problem with Jessica Jones because her villain was very dominant. I mean, do you realize that some of the best villains out there are well recognized because of how much grief they caused the heroes? So I don't know man, it seems to me you're actually the one who wants a double standard applied between a male lead and a female lead. Whenever a movie treats the female lead like they would a male lead you keep having complaints. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 16, 2023 1:54:47 GMT
IE, it's woke when the female lead gets everything a typical Male lead gets. Most typical male leads are highly flawed or go through a whole load of trials and tribulations. The stuff that Atomic Blonde went through is fairly standard for male leads yet you already said that made her pathetic. It's also very common for male heroes to dig deep and find additional strength whenever their loved ones are harmed or put in danger. Think John Wick when his dog is harmed or Dom Torreto whenever his family is in danger. Yet for some reason you have problems when Wonder Woman gets the same "power up" when Steve Trevor died. You also seem to disregard female movies that are, in your words, a failure. Red Sparrow, Bird Box, etc. That was your excuse for why they were not woke yes? Yet you fail to realize that there are a lot of shows and movies out there with male leads that also fail. Then you have a problem with Jessica Jones because her villain was very dominant. I mean, do you realize that some of the best villains out there are well recognized because of how much grief they caused the heroes? So I don't know man, it seems to me you're actually the one who wants a double standard applied between a male lead and a female lead. Whenever a movie treats the female lead like they would a male lead you keep having complaints. Tell that to anyone played by Dwayne Johnson or Chuck Norris.
No, the male lead wouldn't indulge in a sexy homosexual plot detour to titillate female viewers the way the Atomic Blonde female did. Nor would he be captured and tortured.
Was John's dog his co-star who did all the real thinking and leading for him? No, it got killed to start the plot.
They aren't singled out for abuse because they're not as well known, no. And the male failures aren't said to be "Get Woke, Go Broke". They usually get "They were good, too bad the viewers didn't watch."
That and Jessica is a total incompetent who ends up only succeeding because she did what the toxic male secondary villain told her to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 16, 2023 2:00:38 GMT
Most typical male leads are highly flawed or go through a whole load of trials and tribulations. The stuff that Atomic Blonde went through is fairly standard for male leads yet you already said that made her pathetic. It's also very common for male heroes to dig deep and find additional strength whenever their loved ones are harmed or put in danger. Think John Wick when his dog is harmed or Dom Torreto whenever his family is in danger. Yet for some reason you have problems when Wonder Woman gets the same "power up" when Steve Trevor died. You also seem to disregard female movies that are, in your words, a failure. Red Sparrow, Bird Box, etc. That was your excuse for why they were not woke yes? Yet you fail to realize that there are a lot of shows and movies out there with male leads that also fail. Then you have a problem with Jessica Jones because her villain was very dominant. I mean, do you realize that some of the best villains out there are well recognized because of how much grief they caused the heroes? So I don't know man, it seems to me you're actually the one who wants a double standard applied between a male lead and a female lead. Whenever a movie treats the female lead like they would a male lead you keep having complaints. Tell that to anyone played by Dwayne Johnson or Chuck Norris.
No, the male lead wouldn't indulge in a sexy homosexual plot detour to titillate female viewers the way the Atomic Blonde female did. Nor would he be captured and tortured.
Was John's dog his co-star who did all the real thinking and leading for him? No, it got killed to start the plot.
They aren't singled out for abuse because they're not as well known, no. And the male failures aren't said to be "Get Woke, Go Broke". They usually get "They were good, too bad the viewers didn't watch."
That and Jessica is a total incompetent who ends up only succeeding because she did what the toxic male secondary villain told her to do.
Chuck Norris movies haven't been a thing for decades. There's a reason why the 80's action hero stereotype is no longer successful. People don't like it anymore. Dwayne Johnson does indeed play a Gary Stu in most of his movies. That's why his solo movies very seldom do well. But are you really going to argue that Dwayne Johnson represents the modern male hero? As for Atomic Blonde and having a titillating sexual scene, what, you never watched a James Bond movie? John Wick was an example. Are you really going to argue that there aren't a plethora or male heroes out their who get their second wind after their love interest is endangered or harmed? Seriously? That's like one of the oldest tropes in movie history. The female-led movies I gave you that you called failures were never labelled with "Get woke, go broke". Bird Box, Red Sparrow, Anna, etc. So your reasoning here is nonsensical and you seem to be grasping at random trigger words just to save your nonsense. As for Jessica Jones, like I said, you don't seem to like it when the villain is portrayed massively more successful than the hero. Either that or you're just coming up with random excuses because you refuse to admit that there's a number of female-led shows out there that aren't called woke. Completely ruining your argument. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 16, 2023 3:24:23 GMT
Tell that to anyone played by Dwayne Johnson or Chuck Norris.
No, the male lead wouldn't indulge in a sexy homosexual plot detour to titillate female viewers the way the Atomic Blonde female did. Nor would he be captured and tortured.
Was John's dog his co-star who did all the real thinking and leading for him? No, it got killed to start the plot.
They aren't singled out for abuse because they're not as well known, no. And the male failures aren't said to be "Get Woke, Go Broke". They usually get "They were good, too bad the viewers didn't watch."
That and Jessica is a total incompetent who ends up only succeeding because she did what the toxic male secondary villain told her to do.
Chuck Norris movies haven't been a thing for decades. There's a reason why the 80's action hero stereotype is no longer successful. People don't like it anymore. Dwayne Johnson does indeed play a Gary Stu in most of his movies. That's why his solo movies very seldom do well. But are you really going to argue that Dwayne Johnson represents the modern male hero? As for Atomic Blonde and having a titillating sexual scene, what, you never watched a James Bond movie? John Wick was an example. Are you really going to argue that there aren't a plethora or male heroes out their who get their second wind after their love interest is endangered or harmed? Seriously? That's like one of the oldest tropes in movie history. The female-led movies I gave you that you called failures were never labelled with "Get woke, go broke". Bird Box, Red Sparrow, Anna, etc. So your reasoning here is nonsensical and you seem to be grasping at random trigger words just to save your nonsense. As for Jessica Jones, like I said, you don't seem to like it when the villain is portrayed massively more successful than the hero. Either that or you're just coming up with random excuses because you refuse to admit that there's a number of female-led shows out there that aren't called woke. Completely ruining your argument. If the 80s stereotype wasn't successful anymore, then explain things like the Expendables or Jason Statham. People do like it, that's why there are so many complaints about how wussy men are now.
He's apparently the ideal they're supposed to be, yes.
The Bond ones where they focus on the women during the sex, not Bond.
Oh, and Bond himself. He was a big Gary Stu codifier.
With the Love interest not doing anything but being a hostage, or killed. As opposed to them being a proper co-star who dies doing the actual heroic action, which is what Trevor did.
They weren't popular enough to attract the crowd who'd label them as such. If they were, they would get that label.
Not just the villain, Jessica herself was portrayed as epically incompetent and failed at practically everything she was supposed to do in her show. Which is what kept her from being called SJW, cause she failed at everything.
Let me put it this way, if Captain Marvel had been portrayed as a useless shrieking damsel who couldn't do anything without Fury and Yon-Rogg was the real main character who dominated the whole film, would any of the Anti-SJWs appreciate this and think it was a good idea that she was shown as being so pathetic she needed Fury to do all her work for her?
No, they'd just say it was proof of what a terrible character she was and she didn't deserve to exist at all.
You can't win.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 16, 2023 3:32:31 GMT
Talking about how all the characters sucked, which ties into the rhetoric about "forced diversity" and "agendas" and then "gender politics".
Never mind Kyle Kataarn was a Gary Stu no one complained about.
No. It does not tie in. Not at all. The characters sucked because they sucked. Don’t put words in my mouth to justify your trolling. I had zero problem with a female lead. Another character I’ve never heard of. Please, Finn and Poe had more to them than Han ever did.
Oh yes, you had zero problems until it turned out she wasn't a useless shrieking damsel who needed Luke and Finn to do everything for her.
He's another OT Era character who the "fans" wanted to be the lead of the Sequels.
|
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 16, 2023 4:19:30 GMT
Trevor as much of a stranger on Themyscira as Diana is outside of it, coming from two very different backgrounds is what creates an effective relationship between them, and it is from learning about the rest of the world that develops her as a character and makes her a better hero. Did you anticipate Diana to leave Themyscira knowing everything about the outside world despite obvious lack of knowledge? If so, why? And she proved them wrong and kicked lots of rear-end. She didn't need them to beat Nyssiana, Zapan, Grewishka, Vector, or her opponents in motorball. If anything, it says that you may not have watched the movie. If not, have a poor memory of it. They both learned to adapt and survive in the world once the alien race came to present itself in society and managed to work effectively in keeping themselves and their children safe. Krasinski didn't really need to make his sacrifice, but he did so anyway. The sequel shows she is still an effective parent despite being down one partner. Jordan was not a star at the time of the original, but he is now and has also taken on directing duties for the third installment. Stallone has confirmed that he is not in the sequel, if anything Rocky might be mentioned in conversation and something like a photograph or archieved footage, but Stallone filmed no scenes for the movie. She is. I expected Diana to be more than a naive woman child who gets easily seduced by the first man she's ever met and for Trevor to be the "adult" between the two.
The movie was more about James McAvoy than her, and they had to oversex things with the Lesbian relationship as well while making her look pathetic.
Yes she did, she needed her BF to get involved in the sport to start with and Waltz to get her into the hunting business. She needed them to make all her big choices for her.
He was the smarter and more capable of the two of them, start to finish and then his sacrifice is what led her to learn the sound weakness.
So it took two movies to get to that point.
She's not. Nowhere in other SW media is anything the R1 team did remembered.
The island of the Amazons is very different culturally than the rest of the world, they shut themselves out from everyone else for thousands of years and maintained their way of life and culture in that long period of time before World War I came knocking on their doorstep. They have no knowledge of what is transpiring beyond their living space and no idea whether or not other mythic figures are still playing a role in society - which is Diana thinks Ares is responsible for the war, because he is the God of War. Trevor is the literally the first man most inhabitants of Themyscira have ever seen, and Diana the most willing to travel back with him and help. The lack of understanding of the rest of the world plays a major role in her arc in the film and in the end she becomes a better hero in the process. It's very much Theron's movie at the end of the day and she is definitely no damsel in distress. Her not being squeaky clean doesn't diminish her being a strong female character, if anything it is what separates her from, say, Alice as played by Milla Jovovich in the original Resident Evil movies. Did you even watch Alita: Battle Angel? It really doesn't like it, because the titular character made many big decisions and both Keean Johnson and Christoph Watz are against initially, but she proved them wrong. They were both equally intelligent, she clearly takes on the title of the central hero after he passes and continues to be so in its sequel. Jordan wasn't a star when Creed first came out, he is now, and Stallone isn't in the next installment, hence he is nowhere in the marketing. She and her comrades were the ones who stole the Death Star plans from the Empire and gave the rebellion a fighting chance, leading into the original trilogy of films. Erso has also appeared in video games, animation, comic books, and probably will show up eventually in the Andor series when it finishes its story. |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 16, 2023 4:44:33 GMT
You confuse conflict and metaphor with agenda when the two can exist without it. Apolitical art does in fact exist, what is the agenda behind works such as Edgar Allan Poe's The Raven? What about the story Good Night Moon? Where The Wild Things Are? What of the other written works that I have cited? What is the agenda of the Mona Lisa? Dali's The Persistence of Memory? Warhol's Campbell's Soup? So, if someone sees a film in which all male characters are made out to be bad or in which all white people are made to be repulsive slime, then is it wrong for them to assume the agenda behind the works was anti-male and anti-white? Sam Wilson made his first appearance in the Fall of 1969, five years after congress passed Public Law 88-352, The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which "prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Provisions of this civil rights act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex, as well as, race in hiring, promoting, and firing." Stan Lee was progressive thinking, and was opposed to bigotry, cruelty, and sexism, and would on occasion incorporate messages that were against them into the stories, protests against The Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Vietnam war became regular occurrences on the news, and Marvel became to place itself closer to the reality of the world at the time, but Lee still didn't want to come across as preachy when universal truths were being expressed in the storytelling. The Falcon was pitched to Lee by Gene Colan because he liked to draw black people and thought it would be a neat idea to have another superhero of color after the success of characters like Black Panther and he was for the concept. The character's purpose wasn't to be a political talking point, they gave him personality and purpose to exist alongside Captain America, and readers took an instant liking to him, hence his longevity. They cannot. Conflict and Metaphor are part of the Agenda. Tell me that there was no Agenda in Spider-Man, or Captain America, or X-Men. And no you can't say "Analogy and Allegory aren't Agendas".
Your thing is that you're taking offense anytime the author says they meant anything with the story they were telling.
You can find politics in all those things. Yes, even the soup can. It was a critique of the banality of everyday life.
The Raven for example represents the inability to let go of the pain of the past rather than accepting loss and moving forward. A conservative view of constantly clinging to the past.
Those movies don't exist, for starters. They're a Boogeyman. Meanwhile movies where women are all stupid do exist, yet no one talks about the "Anti-Woman" Agenda. Gone with the Wind is rather anti-woman, really.
The Conqueror, starring John Wayne. It had an Anti-Asian Agenda because they cast a white man to play Genghis Khan, to show how little the US thought of them and how easily they'd take one of their historical figures for themselves.
Yes and despite 5 years passing things still weren't much better for black people in America. Civil Rights and Vietnam were still topical things, you can say he wasn't there for political reasons but that's what he ended up being when introduced just at the right time. Actions don't line up with statements.
Conflict and metaphor can exist without agenda in narrative fiction, in fact metaphor isn't even required in narrative fiction, if anything conflict is the one element all stories have in relation to one another, even in slapstick comedy. I am not taking offense if the creator of the work expresses their intention, and it is reflective in it. You do, however, seem very much upset that Stan Lee, although presenting progressive aspects and general morals into his work, didn't want to preach and wanted himself and Marvel to present themselves as entertainers first and foremost. Then what is the politics behind the Mona Lisa, or Dali's The Persistence of Memory? And actually, Warhol's intention when recreating the soup can is still open to conversation, as some have suggested he may have wanted to comment on mass consumerism or that he simply liked the design of the product. What are the political views of Good Night Moon or Where the Wild Things Are, then? Poe had very deep thoughts regarding politics and religion, but not often was that too reflected in his works. Your idea of The Raven's political argument is an interpretation, but most commonly the titular figure in the poem is the inevitability of death itself. I didn't say those movies did exist; I was speaking hypothetically. |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 16, 2023 4:47:52 GMT
No. It does not tie in. Not at all. The characters sucked because they sucked. Don’t put words in my mouth to justify your trolling. I had zero problem with a female lead. Another character I’ve never heard of. Please, Finn and Poe had more to them than Han ever did.
Oh yes, you had zero problems until it turned out she wasn't a useless shrieking damsel who needed Luke and Finn to do everything for her.
He's another OT Era character who the "fans" wanted to be the lead of the Sequels.
Perhaps, but the filmmaking didn't make them very memorable characters, and while Boyega and Isaac are very talented performers, Ford, while not having as much range as either actor, is more charismatic. |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 16, 2023 4:50:18 GMT
On the topic of "woke" The Critical Drinker recently released a video about the whole thing and, which may surprise people like your formersamhmd, is that he warned people not to turn into "the boy who cried woke" when they see something diverse on the screen, because the quality of the storytelling and the filmmaking should matter most in the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 16, 2023 5:25:21 GMT
I expected Diana to be more than a naive woman child who gets easily seduced by the first man she's ever met and for Trevor to be the "adult" between the two.
The movie was more about James McAvoy than her, and they had to oversex things with the Lesbian relationship as well while making her look pathetic.
Yes she did, she needed her BF to get involved in the sport to start with and Waltz to get her into the hunting business. She needed them to make all her big choices for her.
He was the smarter and more capable of the two of them, start to finish and then his sacrifice is what led her to learn the sound weakness.
So it took two movies to get to that point.
She's not. Nowhere in other SW media is anything the R1 team did remembered.
The island of the Amazons is very different culturally than the rest of the world, they shut themselves out from everyone else for thousands of years and maintained their way of life and culture in that long period of time before World War I came knocking on their doorstep. They have no knowledge of what is transpiring beyond their living space and no idea whether or not other mythic figures are still playing a role in society - which is Diana thinks Ares is responsible for the war, because he is the God of War. Trevor is the literally the first man most inhabitants of Themyscira have ever seen, and Diana the most willing to travel back with him and help. The lack of understanding of the rest of the world plays a major role in her arc in the film and in the end she becomes a better hero in the process. It's very much Theron's movie at the end of the day and she is definitely no damsel in distress. Her not being squeaky clean doesn't diminish her being a strong female character, if anything it is what separates her from, say, Alice as played by Milla Jovovich in the original Resident Evil movies. Did you even watch Alita: Battle Angel? It really doesn't like it, because the titular character made many big decisions and both Keean Johnson and Christoph Watz are against initially, but she proved them wrong. They were both equally intelligent, she clearly takes on the title of the central hero after he passes and continues to be so in its sequel. Jordan wasn't a star when Creed first came out, he is now, and Stallone isn't in the next installment, hence he is nowhere in the marketing. She and her comrades were the ones who stole the Death Star plans from the Empire and gave the rebellion a fighting chance, leading into the original trilogy of films. Erso has also appeared in video games, animation, comic books, and probably will show up eventually in the Andor series when it finishes its story. Naive woman child becomes...slightly less naive woman child. Wow.
It's more McAvoy's movie above hers. She's there to be the nominal hero, but spends most of it being beaten up, tortured and then having pointless lesbian sex.
Alice, who somehow no one calls a Mary Sue
I did. She's portrayed as "Born Sexy Yesterday" too much and gets easily led around by Waltz and Johnson too much. All her major decisions are influenced by them. Really she has as much agency as Katniss Everdeen, which is to say, not much.
So she takes over from him, meaning Krasinski the actual hero of the series.
IE, they knew full well that Stallone would be the big draw and it took 2 movies to phase him out.
And they were forgotten after that and never remembered by anyone in the Rebellion. The OT and ST never mentions her people.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 16, 2023 5:31:59 GMT
They cannot. Conflict and Metaphor are part of the Agenda. Tell me that there was no Agenda in Spider-Man, or Captain America, or X-Men. And no you can't say "Analogy and Allegory aren't Agendas".
Your thing is that you're taking offense anytime the author says they meant anything with the story they were telling.
You can find politics in all those things. Yes, even the soup can. It was a critique of the banality of everyday life.
The Raven for example represents the inability to let go of the pain of the past rather than accepting loss and moving forward. A conservative view of constantly clinging to the past.
Those movies don't exist, for starters. They're a Boogeyman. Meanwhile movies where women are all stupid do exist, yet no one talks about the "Anti-Woman" Agenda. Gone with the Wind is rather anti-woman, really.
The Conqueror, starring John Wayne. It had an Anti-Asian Agenda because they cast a white man to play Genghis Khan, to show how little the US thought of them and how easily they'd take one of their historical figures for themselves.
Yes and despite 5 years passing things still weren't much better for black people in America. Civil Rights and Vietnam were still topical things, you can say he wasn't there for political reasons but that's what he ended up being when introduced just at the right time. Actions don't line up with statements.
Conflict and metaphor can exist without agenda in narrative fiction, in fact metaphor isn't even required in narrative fiction, if anything conflict is the one element all stories have in relation to one another, even in slapstick comedy. I am not taking offense if the creator of the work expresses their intention, and it is reflective in it. You do, however, seem very much upset that Stan Lee, although presenting progressive aspects and general morals into his work, didn't want to preach and wanted himself and Marvel to present themselves as entertainers first and foremost. Then what is the politics behind the Mona Lisa, or Dali's The Persistence of Memory? And actually, Warhol's intention when recreating the soup can is still open to conversation, as some have suggested he may have wanted to comment on mass consumerism or that he simply liked the design of the product. What are the political views of Good Night Moon or Where the Wild Things Are, then? Poe had very deep thoughts regarding politics and religion, but not often was that too reflected in his works. Your idea of The Raven's political argument is an interpretation, but most commonly the titular figure in the poem is the inevitability of death itself. I didn't say those movies did exist; I was speaking hypothetically. Conflict and metaphor cannot exist without Agenda, because Agenda in an inherent part of overall storytelling. Even Slapstick comedy had an Agenda.
Stan Lee can say that he didn't want to do that...but the proof is in the pudding. Marvel's social commentary speaks for itself.
The Mona Lisa is supposed to be about the cosmic link between Humanity and the purity of Nature, the rare kind of harmony that exists in the moment when one allows their stress and anxieties over their existence to fade and they find inner peace and connection with the world around them.
Good Night Moon: Saying "good night" to everything you've put value and meaning into. Even if these things are inanimate objects and/or appliances. Which shows the connection a person can have to things that they treat them like they're alive and make you question whether there is a point to this and if we create value in our subjective interpretations of the world around us.
Whereas actual anti-women movies DO exist, and I don't see anyone complaining about them.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 16, 2023 5:32:18 GMT
Please, Finn and Poe had more to them than Han ever did.
Oh yes, you had zero problems until it turned out she wasn't a useless shrieking damsel who needed Luke and Finn to do everything for her.
He's another OT Era character who the "fans" wanted to be the lead of the Sequels.
Perhaps, but the filmmaking didn't make them very memorable characters, and while Boyega and Isaac are very talented performers, Ford, while not having as much range as either actor, is more charismatic. So it's not Han, it's Ford. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 16, 2023 5:32:58 GMT
On the topic of "woke" The Critical Drinker recently released a video about the whole thing and, which may surprise people like your formersamhmd, is that he warned people not to turn into "the boy who cried woke" when they see something diverse on the screen, because the quality of the storytelling and the filmmaking should matter most in the end. Too little, too late. He's part of the problem and now he's just trying to make himself look like less of a Grifter so he can avoid Alex Jones' fate. |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 16, 2023 6:09:04 GMT
The island of the Amazons is very different culturally than the rest of the world, they shut themselves out from everyone else for thousands of years and maintained their way of life and culture in that long period of time before World War I came knocking on their doorstep. They have no knowledge of what is transpiring beyond their living space and no idea whether or not other mythic figures are still playing a role in society - which is Diana thinks Ares is responsible for the war, because he is the God of War. Trevor is the literally the first man most inhabitants of Themyscira have ever seen, and Diana the most willing to travel back with him and help. The lack of understanding of the rest of the world plays a major role in her arc in the film and in the end she becomes a better hero in the process. It's very much Theron's movie at the end of the day and she is definitely no damsel in distress. Her not being squeaky clean doesn't diminish her being a strong female character, if anything it is what separates her from, say, Alice as played by Milla Jovovich in the original Resident Evil movies. Did you even watch Alita: Battle Angel? It really doesn't like it, because the titular character made many big decisions and both Keean Johnson and Christoph Watz are against initially, but she proved them wrong. They were both equally intelligent, she clearly takes on the title of the central hero after he passes and continues to be so in its sequel. Jordan wasn't a star when Creed first came out, he is now, and Stallone isn't in the next installment, hence he is nowhere in the marketing. She and her comrades were the ones who stole the Death Star plans from the Empire and gave the rebellion a fighting chance, leading into the original trilogy of films. Erso has also appeared in video games, animation, comic books, and probably will show up eventually in the Andor series when it finishes its story. Naive woman child becomes...slightly less naive woman child. Wow.
It's more McAvoy's movie above hers. She's there to be the nominal hero, but spends most of it being beaten up, tortured and then having pointless lesbian sex.
Alice, who somehow no one calls a Mary Sue
I did. She's portrayed as "Born Sexy Yesterday" too much and gets easily led around by Waltz and Johnson too much. All her major decisions are influenced by them. Really she has as much agency as Katniss Everdeen, which is to say, not much.
So she takes over from him, meaning Krasinski the actual hero of the series.
IE, they knew full well that Stallone would be the big draw and it took 2 movies to phase him out.
And they were forgotten after that and never remembered by anyone in the Rebellion. The OT and ST never mentions her people.
How is she a naive woman child at the end of the movie? It's her movie, and she kicks plenty of rear-end that matches up with plenty of other male action heroes on film and television. I would actually call Alice from the Resident Evil movies a Mary Sue. I am having doubts that you have seen the picture, because what you have described has been either debunked or is flat-out wrong. They're both heroes. What are you getting at with this? Jordan wasn't a star at the time of release of the first Creed movie, but still the lead of the film. He was the lead in the second as well, and in the third it's all him because he is now a bankable name and Stallone is nowhere to be seen. The original trilogy doesn't mention her and her partners specifically - because they weren't conceived of till the film was developed after Disney's acquisition and Kathleen Kennedy becoming the head of Lucasfilm. The sequel trilogy takes place many years after the original trilogy, what Erso and company had accomplished doesn't really have relevance to the events of the films. |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 16, 2023 6:23:11 GMT
Conflict and metaphor can exist without agenda in narrative fiction, in fact metaphor isn't even required in narrative fiction, if anything conflict is the one element all stories have in relation to one another, even in slapstick comedy. I am not taking offense if the creator of the work expresses their intention, and it is reflective in it. You do, however, seem very much upset that Stan Lee, although presenting progressive aspects and general morals into his work, didn't want to preach and wanted himself and Marvel to present themselves as entertainers first and foremost. Then what is the politics behind the Mona Lisa, or Dali's The Persistence of Memory? And actually, Warhol's intention when recreating the soup can is still open to conversation, as some have suggested he may have wanted to comment on mass consumerism or that he simply liked the design of the product. What are the political views of Good Night Moon or Where the Wild Things Are, then? Poe had very deep thoughts regarding politics and religion, but not often was that too reflected in his works. Your idea of The Raven's political argument is an interpretation, but most commonly the titular figure in the poem is the inevitability of death itself. I didn't say those movies did exist; I was speaking hypothetically. Conflict and metaphor cannot exist without Agenda, because Agenda in an inherent part of overall storytelling. Even Slapstick comedy had an Agenda.
Stan Lee can say that he didn't want to do that...but the proof is in the pudding. Marvel's social commentary speaks for itself.
The Mona Lisa is supposed to be about the cosmic link between Humanity and the purity of Nature, the rare kind of harmony that exists in the moment when one allows their stress and anxieties over their existence to fade and they find inner peace and connection with the world around them.
Good Night Moon: Saying "good night" to everything you've put value and meaning into. Even if these things are inanimate objects and/or appliances. Which shows the connection a person can have to things that they treat them like they're alive and make you question whether there is a point to this and if we create value in our subjective interpretations of the world around us.
Whereas actual anti-women movies DO exist, and I don't see anyone complaining about them.
Yes, they actually can. An agenda, in this conversation, refers to the underlying intentions or motives of a particular group or person. A conflict is a condition in which a person experiences a clash of opposing wishes and needs. A metaphor is a figure of speech or symbolic of something. In storytelling, an agenda can be presented in conflict or in metaphor, a metaphor can exist in the conflict, but they do not have to tie into each other to tell a structured story. Interpretation of the consumer (you) might not be the intention of the creator (in this case, Stan Lee), therefore your argument that the creator clearly wanted themselves and their work as preaching cannot be seen as fact. It would be a different story entirely if Stan Lee left everything ambiguous, but in the interview, I shared, he makes it clear that he didn't like to preach and wanted himself and the company to be seen as providers of escapist entertainment. Which is your interpretation of the Mona Lisa, or someone else's. We may never know exactly what DaVinci really meant with the painting, as he passed away in 1519. That isn't an agenda, and not political. I am curious, however, what films you consider to be 'anti-women' though. |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 16, 2023 6:24:15 GMT
Perhaps, but the filmmaking didn't make them very memorable characters, and while Boyega and Isaac are very talented performers, Ford, while not having as much range as either actor, is more charismatic. So it's not Han, it's Ford. Perhaps, or perhaps not. Ford is the more charismatic of the three actors, though. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2023 6:27:15 GMT
No. It does not tie in. Not at all. The characters sucked because they sucked. Don’t put words in my mouth to justify your trolling. I had zero problem with a female lead. Another character I’ve never heard of. Oh yes, you had zero problems until it turned out she wasn't a useless shrieking damsel who needed Luke and Finn to do everything for her.
Here’s hoping you get banned again.  |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 16, 2023 6:30:18 GMT
On the topic of "woke" The Critical Drinker recently released a video about the whole thing and, which may surprise people like your formersamhmd, is that he warned people not to turn into "the boy who cried woke" when they see something diverse on the screen, because the quality of the storytelling and the filmmaking should matter most in the end. Too little, too late. He's part of the problem and now he's just trying to make himself look like less of a Grifter so he can avoid Alex Jones' fate. Or, he might really mean what he is saying. I don't regularly watch his content, so I don't know what the context is for why he decided to make the video (which I think is well argued and clarifies exactly what 'woke' really means), but the video does exist (I am not sharing it though because it presents footage of some cinema which may go against this website's guidelines). I don't expect you watch it, and I don't expect you to come out being of any agreement with the work, either, because of your (very unhealthy) obsession which has not done your skills in debate any wonders (I also wonder of your perception of reality, as you have denied Mr. Jordan's interview with the directors of Bad Boys For Life and Ms. Marvel from ever taking place when the video was shared to you). |
|
