Namtab posted:

Yes_Cantaloupe posted:

I've gotten most of mine from amiami with little fuss and reasonable prices (to the states).

Level Slide posted:

This is the first time I actually read that post, and now I feel like I should check out Snowpiercer, given it's apparently similar to Kingsman.

Davincie posted:

moving military forces into other countries by 'accident' to provoke a war is a time honoured tradition

Level Slide posted:

This is the first time I actually read that post, and now I feel like I should check out Snowpiercer, given it's apparently similar to Kingsman.

Namtab posted:

"Sometimes people have to die for the greater good" - a goon

Namtab posted:

Namtab posted:

The guy who wanted to kill off most of humanity is in fact the real hero, as opposed to all the people who didn't want that to happen

quote:

I strongly disagree.

If she was a real person, who, of her own initiative, offered the bumsex, then yes, that would say something about her as an individual and her as a woman.

But she is not a real person. She is a fictional character in a movie directed by Matthew Vaughn, based on a comic written by Mark Millar. There is no "she" to decide that she wants to do anything. The script has her initiate the sex because that is more conforming to what men want - the same way most of the women in 007 movies are happy to sleep with James (after the plot-mandated coyness at the beginning), the same way most of the women in porn act like they just can't wait to be hosed. Men fantasize about beautiful women WANTING to sleep with them, they don't fantasize about manipulating or forcing women into sex (for the most part, hopefully). The fictional Swedish princess, a 1-dimensional character with no attributes other than a) opposes mass genocide and b) is up for anal, is not a positive model for assertive female sexuality. Such women, fictional ones even!, can exist, this just sure as hell isn't the way to go about it.

But I don't think Kingsman is truly reinforcing the "women as trophies" trope because it goes so far in that direction that it becomes satire. For those that don't see it as satire, it hits as far past the line of decency, which sparks a discussion. For those that do see it as satire, it is a direct calling out of James Bond, which sparks a discussion. Wow, a film with something to say, how grand!

Davincie posted:

i love snowpiercer, but i also love korea and im a huge fan of the director so...

Namtab posted:

Offer me the bumsex

Davincie posted:

tbh i genuinely thought that post was from imdb, i thought cd was very anal about spelling and grammar and that post was very badly written

Namtab posted:

quote:

You are unfairly removing the context of this discussion. I did not say all women who willingly have sex with a male character in fiction written by men. There are infinite such scenarios that could have worth (be it meaning or entertainment or both) besides pure male titillation, just as there are another infinite such scenarios that are titillation alone.

In terms more honest to what is depicted in the films we're discussing.... a fictional woman who is attractive and readily willing to have sex with the male hero of a film AND offers nothing else in terms of emotional or thematic depth is frequently there only as part of the "escapism" and "thrill" of genre entertainment aimed at men, yes. This is not a radical idea. If Kingsman were playing this straight, if it was not satire, what escapist thrill does a young woman get from the princess scenario? "Gee, I sure wish I was a prisoner in a maniac's secret lair, fearful for my life, with only the offer of anal intercourse as a bargaining chip for my safety!" Whereas, from the male perspective - "Gee, I sure wish I was an unbelievable badass, saving the world and then getting to have anal sex with a beautiful Swedish princess!"

And how does "This is a sex positive representation of the modern woman!" reconcile with the fact that this is a "fun movie"? Having a beautiful woman offer the hero sex is part of the "fun" the same way the action scenes and the jokes are part of the fun. James Bond, Colin Firth, etc. aren't amazing badasses shot in well-choreographed fight scenes because it is important to their characters to look good in fight scenes - their characters' motives are trying to stay alive or some plotty MacGuffin nonsense. The fight scenes are shot to look so cool because it is fun for the audience. The people behind the movie did it for you! The same reason they put beautiful women in sexy clothing and compromising positions - for you!

I'm all for positive models of female sexuality. I'm also fine with sex-for-sex's-sake entertainment aimed at men, because movies can be escapist fun. The only thing I'm truly against is mistaking one for the other.

K. Flaps posted:

I haven't read any of the big-rear end quotes you posted and I won't in the future either.

K. Flaps posted:

I haven't read any of the big-rear end quotes you posted and I won't in the future either.

Namtab posted:

Good

Namtab posted:

Offer me the bumsex

Best Girl posted:

Apparently competitive Catherine was a thing once

Best Girl posted:

Apparently competitive Catherine was a thing once

YIKES Stay Gooned posted:

The film forum is absolutely appalling and I also love movies