|
drhermes posted:That's their point, but it doesn't reflect real life, Women are treated much more leniently when it comes to physical violence, being disorderly or damaging property. As a rule, men are arrested more often and given harsher sentences than women are for the same offense.. even when they commit them together. Maybe it's hardwired in our brains or it's social structure, but people feel more sympathy for women. In domestic disputes or public arguments, everyone automatically takes the woman's side and assume she's not the instigator. So that dialogue just rings false. 
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2023 23:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 13:41 |
|
|
Cojawfee posted:To me dino damage means you can pop off the skin panel of the dinosaur and it reveals the muscle and bones underneath, not that it's just damaged in general. Well its like how pre-ripped jeans aren't damaged in general
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2023 23:59
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:I read -- I hope not here -- that Kate McKinnon can't do Barbie-style splits , so the set designer worked around that by putting leg holes in the sets at carefully out-of-sightline locations and propping a prosthetic leg in the right position. I love that sort of movie detail. It certainly looked like fake legs, when it wasn't a stunt double who was looking away from the camera.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 01:06
|
|
|
Aside: I just saw a YouTube video rhapsodizing about Richard Gere's dancing in Chicago... while running footage of him (purportedly) filmed from the back, interspersed with long close-ups of two dancing feet. Ah, movie magic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 05:17
|
|
|
I remember back when that movie hit theaters and press outlets breathlessly reported how Richard Gere learned to tapdance for the role. It also came up sometimes in movie theater trivia slides. Maybe there's a sly dig in there somewhere. "Hey everyone, remember when Richard Gere learned to tapdance? You remember that, Richard? All the dancing you did for the Chicago movie? Want to tell us some more about it?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 05:25
|
|
|
You know who originated the role on Broadway? Jerry loving Orbach. Who had a distinguished Broadway career, including El Gallo in The Fantasticks. God forbid movies should cast triple-threat actors instead of stars.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 05:36
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:If 70mm film is imagined as ‘masculine’ - and the implicit ‘feminine’ counterpoint is, like, a cellphone video in portrait orientation - then it should be immediately obvious that we’re actually talking about the vagaries of class. Looking for the counterpart is natural and there often will be one set in opposition but often there’s just absence. ‘Class’ takes gender and patriarchy right back out of the equation, though I see how that is the go to system to talk about assignations of value. But we can work with the patriarchal creation of a masculine ‘upper class’ and a feminine ‘lower class’. Value is ascribed to ‘things men do’. Taking art as an example, ceramics and textile works were for the longest time seen as lesser materials compared to painting and sculpture. Or another example, in popular culture, the artist who wrapped things up is Christo. Completely writing out Jeanne-Claude, the equal partner in the practice, until fairly recently. Or food preparation. Cooking is ‘women’s work’. A woman’s place is in the kitchen etc. But at the same time we have the Michelin star masculine chef culture created, with ‘brigades’ of sous-chefs and more such militarisms.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 08:29
|
|
|
L.H.O.O.Q. posted:Looking for the counterpart is natural and there often will be one set in opposition but often there’s just absence. ‘Class’ takes gender and patriarchy right back out of the equation, though I see how that is the go to system to talk about assignations of value. But we can work with the patriarchal creation of a masculine ‘upper class’ and a feminine ‘lower class’. Value is ascribed to ‘things men do’. Taking art as an example, ceramics and textile works were for the longest time seen as lesser materials compared to painting and sculpture. Or another example, in popular culture, the artist who wrapped things up is Christo. Completely writing out Jeanne-Claude, the equal partner in the practice, until fairly recently. Or food preparation. Cooking is ‘women’s work’. A woman’s place is in the kitchen etc. But at the same time we have the Michelin star masculine chef culture created, with ‘brigades’ of sous-chefs and more such militarisms. Class doesn't take anything out of the equation. That's not how it works. Labour is extremely 'Masculine' coded with sweaty men in singlets and hard hats working in factories, construction or even just wearing suits and issuing commands at the top of the boardroom, while wealth is 'feminine' coded with leisure and pampering, engaging in delicate and sissy sports and hobbies and wearing fancy clothes and going to fancy social events, something women celebrate and men tolerate. That this is contradictory and absurd is the point, because the standards cannot be lived up to. They don't make sense, they aren't real, and they don't work. That's one of the reasons they're a problem. Like Barbie literally spells this out with how she's held to absolutely ridiculous and contradictory standards that she can only embody by being inhuman and unreal. This also of course ignores women who have always done backbreaking labour; you rarely see Fruit Picker Barbie, Fast Food Worker Barbie, Parentified Sibling Barbie, etc. Because another one of the criticisms of Barbie as a movie and a franchise is an extremely upper-middle-class White Feminist idea of womanhood, and the general problems of said strain of feminism basically being rich white women who are miffed that they haven't gotten their turn to run the empire. Also not to mention in your example you've got film being coded as a 'bro' thing, of tedious annoying tryhard film bro jock-nerds Snyderbro bro bros who demand all this effort into things while girls just turn your phone sideways and post it to TikTok, which is ludicrously sexist in about every direction for a lot of reasons and wildly ignorant of the history and present of film, media and culture. Sometimes people are being gatekept because they genuinely do just expect to be praised and rewarded just for showing up and don't expect to have to put any effort into it, and wilfully ignore the history of women actually being in movies, making movies, writing movies etc. Yes, it basically goes like that bit where Lisa wants to play football. Ghost Leviathan fucked around with this message at 08:54 on Aug 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 08:50
|
|
|
I’m not saying film as a whole is a ‘bro’ thing at all and one of my points is exactly as you say that patriarchy ignores or writes out the history of women in everything. Class and patriarchy are indelibly intwined. I was just saying, I guess clumsily, that in this instance using class rather than patriarchy in the discussion loses focus as class discussion has a wider framework (political, racial etc), where gender forms just part of the description. The cultural creation of a male ‘upper class’ and a female ‘lower class’ generates all the absurdities and contradictions you rightly point out. L.H.O.O.Q. fucked around with this message at 09:29 on Aug 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 09:13
|
|
|
Yes, just the problem is many approaches to feminism uncritically buy into the patriarchy's narratives and thus you end up with several dozen 'the first female superhero' and 'the first gay character in Star Wars' among other things. The people who have the loudest platforms don't want to do the hard work of excavating those erased narratives and the untold histories of media rather than sweeping aside all that tainted and incorrect media that I imagine the people who vaguely annoy me like, to be replaced with fresh new correct media, which incidentally appeals exactly to me and all my tastes and also makes me lots of money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 09:40
|
|
|
I did love the gag in the opening where everyone reacts really positively to being greeted EXCEPT if it's a ken greeting another ken. Just like quote:Barbie A: Hi Barbie!
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 11:07
|
|
|
L.H.O.O.Q. posted:. Barbie for the female audience and Oppenheimer for the male. It’s asinine, but there it is. I only saw Oppenheimer because my wife wanted to, and we only saw Barbie because I did. Stop putting your poo poo world view onto others.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 15:29
|
|
|
iwentdoodie posted:I only saw Oppenheimer because my wife wanted to, and we only saw Barbie because I did. Stop putting your poo poo world view onto others. Noticing that the world we live in gender-codes things like movies isn't an attempt to force that distinction on people. They describe it as asinine in your quote and as "backward and dumb" earlier in that paragraph.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 17:41
|
|
|
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/barbie-oppenheimer-box-office-1235542025/ In their opening weekends, Barbie's audience was 69% female and Oppenheimer's was 62% male.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 18:24
|
|
|
It's officially passed $1 billion, hell yeah
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 18:29
|
|
|
smug n stuff posted:https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/barbie-oppenheimer-box-office-1235542025/ So, 38% of the people who went to see Oppenheimer were women (gender binary, bah). That seems like quite a large number to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 18:31
|
|
|
Bogus Adventure posted:Right, but I'm talking about the Verhoeven-directed Starship Troopers and not the sequels that kept Neumeier on, and Paul is very vocal about how he wanted to portray the material. Who has more influence on the ultimate portrayal of a movie-the screenwriter or the director? I'd say the director, since they determine the inflection of line delivery and the cuts of the film. The conversation about whether the screenwriter or director had more say in Starship Troopers is exceedingly silly. No matter the ideologies of the specific creatives, you can watch the movie and it's ridiculously obvious within thirty literal seconds that it's mocking blind jingoism. People bringing up "Starship Troopers is secretly critiquing fascism" like it's a fun fact is always annoying. It's not a secret, it announces its intentions immediately and loudly. Albatrossy_Rodent fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Aug 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 23:25
|
|
|
Albatrossy_Rodent posted:The conversation about whether the screemwriter or director had more say in Starship Troopers is exceedingly silly. No matter the ideologies of the specific creatives, you can watch the movie and it's ridiculously obvious within thirty literal seconds that it's mocking blind jingoism. It should have been, right? But a ton of critics at the time thought it was serious despite Verhoeven's history of making satire. Mobile infantry soldiers laughing while handing out bullets to kids was apparently seen as serious argument toward a "service guarantees citizenship" future.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 23:28
|
|
|
iwentdoodie posted:I only saw Oppenheimer because my wife wanted to, and we only saw Barbie because I did. Stop putting your poo poo world view onto others. lol patriarchy is OVER
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 23:46
|
|
|
Bogus Adventure posted:It should have been, right? But a ton of critics at the time thought it was serious despite Verhoeven's history of making satire. Mobile infantry soldiers laughing while handing out bullets to kids was apparently seen as serious argument toward a "service guarantees citizenship" future. Verhoeven is weird because he's extremely unsubtle and yet is frequently misunderstood, even by accomplished critics like Ebert (love him or hate him). Pretty much everyone nowadays accepts that Starship Troopers is a satire of fascism but Showgirls is still in critical limbo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 00:15
|
|
|
notenome posted:Verhoeven is weird because he's extremely unsubtle and yet is frequently misunderstood, even by accomplished critics like Ebert (love him or hate him). Pretty much everyone nowadays accepts that Starship Troopers is a satire of fascism but Showgirls is still in critical limbo. Yeah, I linked a couple reviews up (including Ebert's, lol) where they watched the film and say, "Wow, this is a really dangerous idea. It's a shame it wasn't critically analyzed in this very sincere and not-at-all-satirical film." And the only reason I even included this diversion is just because of people saying Gloria's speech probably didn't have to be said out loud. The problem with not doing that is you're going to have a lot of the audience watch the film without ever landing on the message because there are people who just watch movies to pass the time and don't think about them. Sometimes it's best to err on being too direct than relying on the audience to pick up an underlying message.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 00:22
|
|
|
Is it a sign of cultural progress or regression that instead of pwning nerds over Prometheus SMG has to pwn libs over Barbie?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 01:35
|
|
|
Albatrossy_Rodent posted:The conversation about whether the screenwriter or director had more say in Starship Troopers is exceedingly silly. No matter the ideologies of the specific creatives, you can watch the movie and it's ridiculously obvious within thirty literal seconds that it's mocking blind jingoism. Boom316 posted:....
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 02:18
|
|
|
Breetai posted:Bolding mine. lmao
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 02:36
|
|
|
wasn't the genius of Starship troopers that the anglophone real world bent into it's reality after 9/11 happened?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 04:07
|
|
|
Breetai posted:Bolding mine. that thread is a trip lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 04:46
|
|
|
porfiria posted:Is it a sign of cultural progress or regression that instead of pwning nerds over Prometheus SMG has to pwn libs over Barbie? Libs are just the next step up from nerds. SMG has levelled up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 06:27
|
|
|
It's interesting how the Barbie movie has been kind of a blank slate for terminally online folks in arguing whether it is a woke film or anti woke film. Ben Shapiro ranted that it was a very Woke movie, but Shoeonhead argued it was in fact an anti woke movie based on her own observations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 16:31
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:I am honestly baffled by this. I was responding to a list of movies. I said that two of them dealt with being women, and one dealt with being Black and a woman. I don't know what else I could have done; it would have been ghastly to refer to Hidden Figures only as it dealt with women. Again, I was responding to a list, and I was replying to that list. I did not in any way say or imply that Hidden Figures was lesser because the characters were both Black and women. It’s not actually possible to make a film dealing with the abstract and pure idea of woman/feminism. Having characters face the camera and use specific academic language not only doesn’t render unto it universality, but actually emphasizes a very specific politico-historical context. Computer Serf posted:Yes! The writing is brilliant on the surface level with the very obvious dialog and plot points, but there’s obviously an archetypal film nerd depth and extensive meta criticality. I dare say it’s playing with post-modern critical theory but unpretentiously and with a gigantic brand as a trojan horse. OK, cool so let’s get into it. I'll start off by saying I think the movie is good and very well made. The movie is about the crisis of Barbie’s soul — not Robbie’s character and her existential terror, but Barbie ©’s soul, in the sense that theorist Michel Foucault saw it. “The soul is the effect and instrument of a political anatomy; the soul is the prison of the body.” In our actual world, Barbie is important because of the marketing’s moral claim that their products inspire girls to resist their gendered positions. As their message loses its potency, the biggest conflict of the film is derived through Barbie’s waning relevance. This is best exemplified in the Mattel CEO character played by Will Ferrell, who in a moment of genuine personal courage, betrays his fiduciary duty to serve his moral duty — it’s his total belief in the marketing fantasy that renders his salvation. In the seminal gender studies text, Gender Trouble, Judith Butler did important theoretical work to de-essentialize gender, situating it as a series of discursive historical practices, and building on J. L. Austin’s Speech-Act theory established her theoretical concept of “gender performativity”. But her theoretical indebtedness to Foucault lead to the same deadlock in how to act politically. For post-structuralists, it is beyond the limits of human capacity to theorize categorically, as for the Foucauldian subject’s world, both outer and inner, is wholly constructed/known by power. Butler attempts to bypass this theoretical deadlock by implementing Derrida’s deconstruction in “gender performativity” to produce unforeseen knowledge unknowable by power. "If the rules governing signification not only restrict, but enable the assertion of alternative domains of cultural intelligibility, i.e., new possibilities for gender that contest the rigid codes of hierarchical binarisms, then it is only within the practices of repetitive signifying that a subversion of identity becomes possible... The coexistence or convergence of [different] discursive injunctions produces the possibility of a complex reconfiguration and redeployment." - Judith Butler, Gender Trouble The issue is that Butler disregards crucial aspects of J.L’s Austin’s Speech-Act theory, namely that it is institutional power that gives a speech-act its power. I wrote all of this to say, that Butler’s problematic usage of the speech-act theory parallels not only the Barbie film’s narrative, but also how the film is being received. In Barbie Land, identity reigns supreme. The men do not establish Kendom because of any material concerns, but for their lack of recognition that renders them sub-human. The Kens overcome their oppression by deconstructing the gender politics of their world, which in turn robs young girls everywhere of their precious inspiration. Once things are back to normal, the proposition of producing Mid-Barbie is on the table. This has brought us here, where people feel they need to defend the historical importance of an absurdly financially successful IP film against the toxic-masculine film bros of CineD. KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Aug 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 17:01
|
|
|
 https://twitter.com/lucacadamo/status/1688275481236246529?t=9e_WCymAV97I70G2WurSzQ&s=19
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 18:50
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:
How could Barbie and Ken do this to Alan???
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 19:09
|
|
|
We have proof that Allan hosed, and he's an incel?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 19:12
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:
does this guy know how babies are made or
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 19:20
|
|
|
That's why Allan's so chill. He knows exactly where he lies with Midge. The Kens' things are vaguely defined, but Allan is canonically the father to Midge's eternal pregnancy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 19:23
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:
Android Apocalypse posted:Why settle for being a Ken when you can be an Allan?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 19:27
|
|
|
Whoops wrong director.
AvesPKS fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Aug 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 19:45
|
|
|
AvesPKS posted:https://youtu.be/7U4ZYOBzEEs  Bonus screenwriting credit to Frank Miller too! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHST6w3A8es
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 20:27
|
|
|
Android Apocalypse posted:Verhoeven didn't direct Robocop 2. That was Star Wars Episode II: The Empire Strikes Back director Irvin Kershner. Dammit. I was going to post the sunblock commercial but that's from 2 as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 20:32
|
|
|
Robocop 2 was the 1st R-rated movie I saw in the theater, so it's a touchstone film for me. I'm waiting to hear back from some friends that wanted to see Barbie today.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 20:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 13:41 |
|
|
Android Apocalypse posted:Robocop 2 was the 1st R-rated movie I saw in the theater, so it's a touchstone film for me. It's funny you say that, Barbie is the Robocop of Barbie movies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 20:57
|
|