|
Something I learned from following the development of the Godzilla reboot a few years back is that I'm not sure Gareth Edwards quite understands how movies work beyond making the camera show pretty pictures. Either that, or he's just parroting the inoffensive tripe that the studio asked him to say. Either way, not surprising he misses one of the most important aspects of Ripley's character, but then again, nothing in Edwards' filmography makes me sure he thinks of ANY characters as anything but a set of clothes.
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:38 |
|
|
So the Gareth Edwards is a hack comments have started early. Yes, the man trusted with a billion dollar franchise just makes pretty pictures. Give me a loving break goon. Monsters and Godzilla was just pure fluke, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:Something I learned from following the development of the Godzilla reboot a few years back is that I'm not sure Gareth Edwards quite understands how movies work beyond making the camera show pretty pictures. Either that, or he's just parroting the inoffensive tripe that the studio asked him to say. Either way, not surprising he misses one of the most important aspects of Ripley's character, but then again, nothing in Edwards' filmography makes me sure he thinks of ANY characters as anything but a set of clothes. so if rogue one is good, you'll keep beating that drum? you already have people saying its as good as empire oh btw nerdes notice nobody is saying its as good as "prequel"
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Rogue One is going to make mega bucks. Mega Bison Bucks. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
i literally cannot see him as anything other than gomez adams
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:Give me a loving break goon. Monsters and Godzilla was just pure fluke, right? Monsters and Godzilla were both good at visual story telling but horribly anaemic in the acting and writing departments so I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong if Rogue One manages to have an engaging cast and an intesting story, though. (Also plz don't lump me in with prequel defenders okay thank you)
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Most movies don't have any pretty pictures in them. Therefore, I appreciate Edwards' craft and his banal insight into writing/shooting his female protagonist as gender-neutral - which, of course, is how the characters of Star Beast were originally conceived.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
It is possible for a director with an under-developed sense of the importance of gender in film to make a good movie. It doesn't mean they can't be criticized for it. Incredible, I know. Just because D.W. Griffith was a horrible racist doesn't make his work anything less than an artistic marvel. Phi230 posted:oh btw nerdes notice nobody is saying its as good as "prequel" After all of your worthless posts, I guess this was the one that finally convinced me to hate the prequels and start placing blind faith in Kevin Smith. Your skills in rhetoric are unparalleled.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:Most movies don't have any pretty pictures in them. Therefore, I appreciate Edwards' craft and his banal insight into writing/shooting his female protagonist as gender-neutral - which, of course, is how the characters of Star Beast were originally conceived. Alien, i.e. Star Beast did not place a great deal of emphasis on the genders of its characters, no, but the Ripley character mythology is heavily informed by Aliens, which placed femininity at the center of her character.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:Alien, i.e. Star Beast did not place a great deal of emphasis on the genders of its characters, no, but the Ripley character mythology is heavily informed by Aliens, which placed femininity at the center of her character. Wait, are you implying that Ripley's gender is not absolutely central to the original Alien?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:Wait, are you implying that Ripley's gender is not absolutely central to the original Alien? No, but it is much more heavily emphasized in the sequel, so that, while I can see Edwards' argument in a bit more of a favorable light in a world where Aliens does not exist, the fact that it does makes it that much harder to defend.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:No, but it is much more heavily emphasized in the sequel, so that, while I can see Edwards' argument in a bit more of a favorable light in a world where Aliens does not exist, the fact that it does makes it that much harder to defend. Well, he also explicitly refers to Aliens, which I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume was a mental error (or a dictation error on the magazine's part). But I mean, if you think that Ripley could've been played by a man in Alien and that her gender was immaterial to its meaning then you have a lack a fundamental understanding of what the film is about. I don't think we disagree, I just find it shocking that he'd single out Alien of all films as an example of where he doesn't see gender. That'd be like singling out 12 Years a Slave as being a great movie because of how it gives a black actor a chance at a traditionally white role.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:Well, he also explicitly refers to Aliens, which I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume was a mental error (or a dictation error on the magazine's part). But I mean, if you think that Ripley could've been played by a man in Alien and that her gender was immaterial to its meaning then you have a lack a fundamental understanding of what the film is about. I don't think we disagree, I just find it shocking that he'd single out Alien of all films as an example of where he doesn't see gender. That'd be like singling out 12 Years a Slave as being a great movie because of how it gives a black actor a chance at a traditionally white role. Yeah. That's what makes me think he's probably just parroting some lines that somebody at the studio said would make for a good soundbyte, because if "Aliens" is your go-to example of a movie where "no part of [your] brain thinks of her gender", then I have to wonder how you ended up directing movies in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:It is possible for a director with an under-developed sense of the importance of gender in film to make a good movie. It doesn't mean they can't be criticized for it. Incredible, I know. Edwards didn't say gender wasn't important, or that Ripley's gender wasn't/isn't important, or that Jyn's gender is unimportant. He even explicitly begins by talking about how the character is meant as a source of inspiration specifically for one of the co-writer's daughters. HannibalBarca posted:Alien, i.e. Star Beast did not place a great deal of emphasis on the genders of its characters, no, but the Ripley character mythology is heavily informed by Aliens, which placed femininity at the center of her character. Okay, but Edwards isn't talking about "character mythology." He's talking about 'gender-neutrality' and the perceptions of young people (i.e., himself as a kid, the co-writer's daughters). It's as banal as him saying, "Ripley is a model for me of how one can write female characters in action movies," and nowhere does he say that gender is unimportant to this. Indeed, I think you'll find it's very hard to conceptualize gender neutrality without first conceptualizing gender. Jewmanji posted:But I mean, if you think that Ripley could've been played by a man in Alien and that her gender was immaterial to its meaning -- He didn't say that. Settle down, Jewmanji.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
Ripley was written as a man.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:Yeah. That's what makes me think he's probably just parroting some lines that somebody at the studio said would make for a good soundbyte, because if "Aliens" is your go-to example of a movie where "no part of [your] brain thinks of her gender", then I have to wonder how you ended up directing movies in the first place. It'd maybe be more believable that he doesn't know much about Aliens if he hadn't made his name making monster movies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:Ripley was written as a man. The movie that ended up being filmed is a different thing than the original script.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:Wait, are you implying that Ripley's gender is not absolutely central to the original Alien? Ripley's gender is not really central to the original Alien, no. It becomes important mostly at the ending, once she sheds her unisex jumpsuit. It's also not hugely important in Aliens' superior theatrical cut - which is less conducive to being read as a depiction of 'powerful motherly instincts'. I've always found that interpretation questionable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:Edwards didn't say gender wasn't important, or that Ripley's gender wasn't/isn't important, or that Jyn's gender is unimportant. He even explicitly begins by talking about how the character is meant as a source of inspiration specifically for one of the co-writer's daughters. He said, "no part of my brain thinks of her gender". If no part of his brain thinks of her gender, than that is his way of saying gender is not important to him beyond token diversity. How is that different than someone saying "I don't see race"? If no part of his brain thinks of Ellen Ripley as a woman, than she could just as easily have been portrayed by a man and it wouldn't affect the movie at all, other than, again, the tacit nod to inclusion. So like, when Elmer Ripley as played by a random male actor aborts the giant penis out of the ship, it signifies the exact same thing. That makes total sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
You're twisting his words and creating controversy where there isn't any.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:It is possible for a director with an under-developed sense of the importance of gender in film to make a good movie. It doesn't mean they can't be criticized for it. Incredible, I know. too easy jesus dude
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
The pure partisanship on display is amusing. It's possible for the director to say a dumb thing and make a good movie. I'm not sure why it makes people so uncomfortable to simply say "yeah that was dumb, hopefully it's not reflected in the movie, which will end up being great", which is how I feel. I also love all Star Wars movies (except VII) and found Lucas' comments last year about "white slavers" to be ghastly. I can hold both of these thoughts in my head simultaneously. I bet you can too if you would stop assuming a defensive posture against every perceived slight towards a movie that hasn't come out yet, but towards which you have a bizarre loyalty to already.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:He said, "no part of my brain thinks of her gender". If no part of his brain thinks of her gender, than that is his way of saying gender is not important to him beyond token diversity. How is that different than someone saying "I don't see race"? Because gender and race are not identical cultural concepts. Edwards did not say "I don't see gender." He said Ripley is emblematic of a character who is 'gender neutral,' a model of a female character whose role in a film is signified as neither stereotypically masculine or feminine. What Edwards is alluding to is the significance of gender as a cultural construct, particularly as it is signified and structured through cinema. He is not saying the perception of gender isn't important. He's saying that a feminine/masculine binary (which is conventionally upheld in most films, with particular reflection in production and costume design) is limiting in terms of how he thinks people come to identify with characters. This has nothing to do with partisanship. You are rejecting Edwards' project of conceptualizing gender neutrality as 'tokenism,' even though it crucially taps into themes of the non-binary expression of gender.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:The pure partisanship on display is amusing. It's possible for the director to say a dumb thing and make a good movie. I'm not sure why it makes people so uncomfortable to simply say "yeah that was dumb, hopefully it's not reflected in the movie, which will end up being great", which is how I feel. Lol you literally cite TFA is identical to ANH. Therefore you hate ANH. You don't like star wars.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:Because gender and race are not identical cultural concepts. Edwards did not say "I don't see gender." He said Ripley is emblematic of a character who is 'gender neutral,' a model of a female character whose role in a film is signified as neither stereotypically masculine or feminine. I think you just have a more nuanced approach to gender than he does. I don't read any of what you just wrote in his comments. It's not a big deal. Phi230 posted:Lol you literally cite TFA is identical to ANH. Therefore you hate ANH. You don't like star wars. I'm not sure what you're talking about at all. Go ahead and clarify if you'd like.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Lol you literally cite TFA is identical to ANH. Therefore you hate ANH. You don't like star wars. you enjoy mario kart but don't like supra mayro kratt, therefore you hate mario kart - tezzor, 2016
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Lol you literally cite TFA is identical to ANH. Therefore you hate ANH. You don't like star wars. Poor copies of a good work can't exist? I don't personally think TFA is a poor copy of ANH, I just take issue with your "logic".
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:Monsters and Godzilla was just pure fluke, right? More like pure poo poo
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
banned from Starbucks posted:More like pure poo poo That's deep.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ss8BUq1doxM
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
In the Spoiler-O-Rama thread, some dude in Europe attended a special fan screening and spoiled all the Vader scenes and the ending. Oh my god. Oh my god.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
At the end of Rogue One, the heroes successfully steal the plans and send them to Leia's ship.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
Zoran posted:At the end of Rogue One, the heroes successfully steal the plans and send them to Leia's ship. Shocking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
Just as all hope is lost Jyn hears the words of her father which give her the courage to press on, "Meesa Jarjar Binks" he whispers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
ungulateman posted:you enjoy mario kart but don't like supra mayro kratt, therefore you hate mario kart - tezzor, 2016 gently caress you, Supra Mayro Kratt is my favourite game
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
Zoran posted:At the end of Rogue One, the heroes successfully steal the plans and send them to Leia's ship. Actually the plans reveal that the Empire constructed two less powerful decoy Death Stars, with the real one set to he finished around the time Episode 8 takes place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
Darth Vader dies but is replaced by Felicity Jones so the resistance can live on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 10:46
|
|
|
Gonz posted:In the Spoiler-O-Rama thread, some dude in Europe attended a special fan screening and spoiled all the Vader scenes and the ending. I don't want to know any more than this: oh my god good, or oh my god bad?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 14:02
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:Actually the plans reveal that the Empire constructed two less powerful decoy Death Stars, with the real one set to he finished around the time Episode 8 takes place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:38 |
|
|
turn left hillary!! noo posted:I don't want to know any more than this: oh my god good, or oh my god bad? I read several spoilers (all the same stuff so I guess true?) and right now it seems really really good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 14:30
|
|
