|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I gotta say though that I love the overall argument that the woman must cover up because patriarchical institutions already control her body and male audiences can't control themselves.
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Yes, that's definitely what's going on here - I'm not criticizing a scene in a movie, I'm criticizing women. How dare they, those women! Pretty much, yes. Your posts have focussed exclusively on there being a breast onscreen. You've not written anything about the actress' pose, the dynamic of the gaze, how this scene fits into the context of the film, the editing or cinematography (outside the fact that her breast is visible onscreen, and not cropped out or obscured behind a pottery). Admittedly, you did drop an offhand reference to 'the male gaze', but without elaboration, when the character straight-up says 'stop gazing at me' in a calm, rational demand for respect from a man. Everything about her pose conveys 'I'm a person." And this needs to be read in context with Khan the 'inhuman' other who likewise demands respect. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Jun 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Ok, so whose predictions? Hey, could you maybe skip to the punchline here? I don't understand what you're getting at - do you think it's unreasonable to claim that there's a thread of juvenile titillation running through films like these, such that it's actually more surprising when a given movie or comic or game doesn't feature chitinous high heels or cyber bikinis or whatever? Like, I agree in full that Carol Marcus's attitude and bearing in the scene are a direct attack on that kind of content, but the only reason that attack makes sense in the first place is because that kind of content is common enough that you, I'm talking about the general you here, me and you, who are film viewers and are capable of making educated guesses about the future by using our knowledge of the past, """expect""" to see. Indeed, if the expectation didn't exist that the female lead would be getting naked and swooning in Kirk's arms, the scene wouldn't make any sense whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Pretty much, yes. Your posts have focussed exclusively on there being a breast onscreen. That's stupid, stop it. I'm talking about a movie's presentation of a woman, not women. quote:You've not written anything about the actress' pose, the dynamic of the gaze, how this scene fits into the context of the film, the editing or cinematography (outside the fact that her breast is visible onscreen, not cropped out or obscured behind a pottery). I haven't written anything about the actress's pose because I agree with you about the actress's pose. I mean, it's true, Marcus's expression and bearing serve to rebuff Kirk's gaze, great. Whether or not we're told not to stop gazing at the character, though, we still are made by the movie to gaze at the character. They could've made a giant  face pop up to hover next to Marcus, too, but what's actually being objected to here is the means by which Star Trek decided to rebuff the male gaze, not the fact of Star Trek attempting to rebuff the male gaze.These sci fi flicks sure do have the camera stare at scantily-dressed women a lot, eh? All right, here's my idea - we'll point the camera at a scantily-dressed woman, but the woman's going to be, like, totally annoyed about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:
Again, you're showing the viewpoint that scantily clad women (or the viewing of such by the audience anyway) are inherently immoral.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Again, you're showing the viewpoint that scantily clad women (or the viewing of such by the audience anyway) are inherently immoral. You're not reading what's being said.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Is not? A few posts back, Ferrinus explicitly endorsed how this scene, same stuff going on, same things being filmed, could have worked just by changing camera angles. When the camera angle is changed, the audience can no longer see. It's explicitly a callout to the audience to "stop looking" as much as Kirk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Is not? A few posts back, Ferrinus explicitly endorsed how this scene, same stuff going on, same things being filmed, could have worked just by changing camera angles. No, he didn't. His suggestion was to explicitly not show a woman in her underwear, but to bowdlerize it out and just sort of show her face.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Is not? A few posts back, Ferrinus explicitly endorsed how this scene, same stuff going on, same things being filmed, could have worked just by changing camera angles. The post you're referring to supports his points because in that post Ferrinus was arguing that the scantily clad woman should have been obscured.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Hey, could you maybe skip to the punchline here? I don't understand what you're getting at - do you think it's unreasonable to claim that there's a thread of juvenile titillation running through films like these, such that it's actually more surprising when a given movie or comic or game doesn't feature chitinous high heels or cyber bikinis or whatever? Like, I agree in full that Carol Marcus's attitude and bearing in the scene are a direct attack on that kind of content, but the only reason that attack makes sense in the first place is because that kind of content is common enough that you, I'm talking about the general you here, me and you, who are film viewers and are capable of making educated guesses about the future by using our knowledge of the past, """expect""" to see. I'm trying to get you to nail down who you're talking about and thereby ground what you're talking about- Who is being pandered to, who is being titillated, whose expectations are being completely complied with? Who "expects (either due to a sense of entitlement or just weary resignation) to be pandered to by being shown a woman in her underwear"? The problem is you want to accuse the scene of being pandering "juvenile titillation" but you refuse to say who it's pandering to, and as I already pointed out no actually existing person needs to pay to see this film to see a woman in underwear. I don't think that the scene in question is part of a pattern of juvenile titillation in film because it is neither juvenile nor titillating. If you want to relate it to that pattern then its going against the expectations of anybody who desires juvenile titillation, not fulfilling them. But even without that the scene makes sense as part of the film because it tells us about two of the characters in the film. quote:Indeed, if the expectation didn't exist that the female lead would be getting naked and swooning in Kirk's arms, the scene wouldn't make any sense whatsoever. But then she doesn't actually "comply completely with those expectations", right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:These sci fi flicks sure do have the camera stare at scantily-dressed women a lot, eh? All right, here's my idea - we'll point the camera at a scantily-dressed woman, but the woman's going to be, like, totally annoyed about it. This is your caricaturing thing I was talking about, again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:I'm trying to get you to nail down who you're talking about and thereby ground what you're talking about- Who is being pandered to, who is being titillated, whose expectations are being completely complied with? Who "expects (either due to a sense of entitlement or just weary resignation) to be pandered to by being shown a woman in her underwear"? The problem is you want to accuse the scene of being pandering "juvenile titillation" but you refuse to say who it's pandering to, and as I already pointed out no actually existing person needs to pay to see this film to see a woman in underwear. Man, who does a shot of an actress in her underwear pander to? I just don't know! I disagree with you that it's neither juvenile nor titillating. In fact, it has to be in order for for Marcus's actual dialogue/stance/expression/etc to subvert the basic setup. If, for instance, we'd instead had a scene where Marcus was about to change, noticed that Kirk was watching, and told him off in the exact same words before just going into another room the scene wouldn't work the same way. quote:But then she doesn't actually "comply completely with those expectations", right? Dude. quote:This is your caricaturing thing I was talking about, again. Who am I caricaturing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:All right, here's my idea - we'll point the camera at a scantily-dressed woman, but the woman's going to be, like, totally annoyed about it. This is my overall point. You seem to have conflated male gaze (which describes a specific type of power relationship) with literally any time a man looks at a woman - and therefore, effectively, any time a woman appears onscreen at all. So, in this case, a male director and a female actor work in tandem to obviously subvert the male gaze by calling attention to it and making her character a subject with agency - but this doesn't count because the director actually had power over her all along and she forgot that audiences are too dumb to stop masturbating long enough to hear her voice. Her character is and can only be just an irrelevant annoyed face attached to a breast. So again, the game is over. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Jun 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
edit: come to think of it, this is a silly
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:This is my overall point. You seem to have conflated male gaze (which describes a specific type of power relationship) with literally any time a man looks at a woman - and therefore, effectively, any time a woman appears onscreen at all. I don't think I have, no. I actually can't believe that you would take the tack of claiming that my objection necessarily applies to all instances of women appearing onscreen ever. Why would you resort to a distortion like that? Don't you have anything better? I mean, sure, yeah, the game is over. If a movie criticizes the male gaze by, literally, using the male gaze and hanging a lampshade on it, oops! It's still going to cop criticism for using the male gaze! I can appreciate what the scene is trying to do while thinking it's undercutting itself at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Again, you're showing the viewpoint that scantily clad women (or the viewing of such by the audience anyway) are inherently immoral. Comprehensive list of important women's issues, as compiled by internet dudes: -They have a right to be sexy for me, and you're sexist if you criticize objectification - - - - - - - - -
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Comprehensive list of important women's issues, as compiled by internet dudes: Do you believe a woman showing her body is inherently immoral?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 23:12
|
|
|
Not at all! But I do believe that dudes who bring that up as their first, last, and only issue of concern about women are inherently dishonest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Not at all! But I do believe that dudes who bring that up as their first, last, and only issue of concern about women are inherently dishonest. It's the only concern in this thread because that's the most controversial (for better or worse) aspect of the film regarding women.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:If a movie criticizes the male gaze by, literally, using the male gaze and hanging a lampshade on it, oops! It's still going to cop criticism for using the male gaze! I can appreciate what the scene is trying to do while thinking it's undercutting itself at the same time. The film doesn't use the male gaze and then hang a lampshade on it since the shot in question isn't an instance of the male gaze. As far as I can tell the only evidence for it being an instance of the male gaze comes from the fact that it contains a scantily-clad woman, and the idea that "scantily-clad" automatically means "male gaze" is the "game over" that SMG is talking about. If you think there's more to that shot that makes it male-gazey than just Carol Marcus's attire, Alice Eve's attractiveness, and the fact that these are visible I'm curious what that is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:The film doesn't use the male gaze and then hang a lampshade on it since the shot in question isn't an instance of the male gaze. As far as I can tell the only evidence for it being an instance of the male gaze comes from the fact that it contains a scantily-clad woman, and the idea that "scantily-clad" automatically means "male gaze" is the "game over" that SMG is talking about. If you think there's more to that shot that makes it male-gazey than just Carol Marcus's attire, Alice Eve's attractiveness, and the fact that these are visible I'm curious what that is. Our point of view in that shot is right next to Kirk. Like, the camera's standing maybe three feet to his left. It is quite literally a male's gaze. We are seeing what Kirk is seeing, and the character is reacting to Kirk looking at her. I mean, I guess we're not like watching a Being John Malkovich inspired view through his literal eyes and hearing his thought process, sure, but the camera is straight up from Kirk's vantage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
It is a male's gaze, but I wouldn't call it the male gaze. The scene really helps define Carol's character. She gives no fucks about Kirk. He's apparently legendary around starfleet academy for being great in the sack, but she gives no fucks. She's got a job to do, and Kirk ogling her isn't going to phase her.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Comprehensive list of important women's issues, as compiled by internet dudes: Hey look, another dishonest poo poo post that tries to disparage people defending the scene. Crappy Jack posted:Our point of view in that shot is right next to Kirk. Like, the camera's standing maybe three feet to his left. It is quite literally a male's gaze. We are seeing what Kirk is seeing, and the character is reacting to Kirk looking at her. I mean, I guess we're not like watching a Being John Malkovich inspired view through his literal eyes and hearing his thought process, sure, but the camera is straight up from Kirk's vantage. If our point of view is not Kirk's but just right next to Kirk's, then it's not his gaze and not "quite literally a male's gaze." E: To be clear, I'm not arguing that it isn't necessarily male gaze, just that this particular explanation doesn't make sense. PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Jun 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
Crappy Jack posted:Our point of view in that shot is right next to Kirk. Like, the camera's standing maybe three feet to his left. It is quite literally a male's gaze. We are seeing what Kirk is seeing, and the character is reacting to Kirk looking at her. I mean, I guess we're not like watching a Being John Malkovich inspired view through his literal eyes and hearing his thought process, sure, but the camera is straight up from Kirk's vantage.  I saw the movie and I'm pretty sure Kirk wasn't crawling around on the floor in that scene. Whether or not you think moving the viewpoint to the left is meaningful, moving it downwards definitely is. This change in vantage is significant to how we perceive Marcus, making her tower over us, reducing our power respective to hers, which directly speaks against it being an instance of the male gaze.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 01:02
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Hey look, another dishonest poo poo post that tries to disparage people defending the scene. My heart bleeds for the guys who temporarily transform into champions against sexism if and only if their boners are tangentially involved. jivjov posted:It is a male's gaze, but I wouldn't call it the male gaze. The scene really helps define Carol's character. She gives no fucks about Kirk. He's apparently legendary around starfleet academy for being great in the sack, but she gives no fucks. She's got a job to do, and Kirk ogling her isn't going to phase her. Why is a woman's nuanced relationship with boners always treated as the most important thing to establish about her character? SMG talked about the game being lost because people will sexualize anything, but to me the real rigged game is that sexuality is frequently considered the only relevant avenue of empowerment for women.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 01:05
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:to me the real rigged game is that sexuality is frequently considered the only relevant avenue of empowerment for women. Its not about "empowering women", its about challenging Kirk's (and Star Trek's) view of women. It ties into Starfleet's ridiculous uniforms for women, which are a call back to the old Star Trek.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 01:11
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:My heart bleeds for the guys who temporarily transform into champions against sexism if and only if their boners are tangentially involved. When did I ever say it was the most important thing? If you're going to continue participating in this debate, kindly don't put words in my mouth. It is a facet of her character. Another that's given spotlight in the film is that she puts morals before family ties, and a third is that she's willing to break the rules in order to do the right thing. Her not indulging Kirk's lechery is just one character aspect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 01:17
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:My heart bleeds for the guys who temporarily transform into champions against sexism if and only if their boners are tangentially involved. Stop projecting the shame you felt at your own erection upon others.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Stop projecting the shame you felt at your own erection upon others. Yeah, that's how it works. Everyone in the audience for this film got a boner, but only a few brave souls have the courage to revel in it (or, alternately, explain it away as a satirical boner).
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Yeah, that's how it works. Everyone in the audience for this film got a boner, but only a few brave souls have the courage to revel in it (or, alternately, explain it away as a satirical boner). You seem certain that the film gave people erections. How come? And why does that upset you so much?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 01:27
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:You seem certain that the film gave people erections. How come? And why does that upset you so much? A moment ago you seemed certain that the film gave me an erection, so maybe you could answer your own first question. And here we go with the careful word choice of "upset". Like "outraged" and "offended", it's designed to characterize critics as highly emotional and unreasonable, as opposed to the more accurate reality: annoyed, alienated, derisive, bemused. Cheesecake is a sometimes food. When you put it in contexts where it makes sense and the work is up-front about indulging sexual fantasy, everything's fine. When you stick it in any old situation on a whim, it normalizes the ever-present idea that this is just how women are supposed to be presented and defined in media of all kinds. jivjov posted:Another that's given spotlight in the film is that she puts morals before family ties, and a third is that she's willing to break the rules in order to do the right thing. Her not indulging Kirk's lechery is just one character aspect. And yet her sexual perspective is the earliest stand-out development she is given, and she is given that development without prompting by the plot, with its own dedicated scene, and without any relevant connection to what comes before or after in the film. It's absolutely given top priority as part of her character development, and without sensible cause. Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Jun 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 01:34
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:A moment ago you seemed certain that the film gave me an erection, so maybe you could answer your own first question. Are you really this dense? quote:And yet her sexual perspective is the earliest stand-out development she is given This isn't true. The film focuses on how insulted she feels when Spock questions her purpose and importance. And pardon me for taking care with my language choice. I figured with your penchant for misreading and misrepresenting the points of others it would be helpful. E: I get it, you're having fun arguing and being contrarian, and that's cool. It's a lot of fun. But you got to put some actual effort into it. You're pulling the same sort of disingenuous horseshit you pulled on the last page when you were trying to argue that the scene had no point. After some prodding, you came to a decent point--that the film tried to justify a scene of male gaze by covering it in a veneer of criticism of male gaze. That's an interesting point, and one I only disagree with in terms of intention, but instead of trying to argue for that point, all you've done is insinuate that the people who disagree with you are being dishonest. And doing that eventually makes you seem dishonest. Which is how I now perceive you. Which is why I've been responding to your boner jokes with more boner jokes. PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Jun 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:This isn't true. The film focuses on how insulted she feels when Spock questions her purpose and importance. This is inaccurate. In the shuttle scene, the film spends zero time focusing on her reaction to what Spock says, because Kirk cuts him off immediately and she reacts positively to Kirk's acceptance. The next Carol Marcus moment involves Spock confronting her in her lie, but that development is incomplete, since it's only establishing that there's something we don't know about her character/intentions; it does not develop what that might be (the scene is interrupted by a jump scare where the ship gets rocked around). After that: underwear.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 02:08
|
|
|
Okay, I remember her being flummoxed and speechless, but I guess I am conflating multiple scenes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Man, who does a shot of an actress in her underwear pander to? I just don't know! That's not an answer. Why is it so hard for you to give a straight answer to this simple question? I don't want to put words in your mouth, I want you to put them there. quote:I disagree with you that it's neither juvenile nor titillating. In fact, it has to be in order for for Marcus's actual dialogue/stance/expression/etc to subvert the basic setup. If, for instance, we'd instead had a scene where Marcus was about to change, noticed that Kirk was watching, and told him off in the exact same words before just going into another room the scene wouldn't work the same way. I already explained why I don't see the scene as arousing or titillating when taking into account the cultural context, but you missed the point and decided I was arguing that "everything else around you is already attempting to arouse and titillate you, this shouldn't even be on your radar!!" I was not. Kirk is being juvenile in the scene, yes, and sure that's part of the setup. But you haven't explained what makes the scene itself juvenile. You're right that the scene wouldn't work the same way if it was changed, and that's exactly why I don't think it should have been changed. quote:Dude. That's not a very good answer. I'll answer for you: No, she does not comply with those expectations since at no point does she get naked and swoon in Kirk's arms. So then I hope you can see why I disagree with you saying that "she complies completely with my expectations with regards to her on-screen presentation and actions". quote:Who am I caricaturing? Well, there you appear to have constructed a sarcastic strawman caricature of a filmmaker and his dumb thought process behind the scene. It's easy to make something sound dumb that way; too easy for me to take that seriously as a compelling form of argument. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Jun 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 06:14
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:That's not an answer. Why is it so hard for you to give a straight answer to this simple question? I don't want to deal with you triumphantly activating your trap card because whatever answer I give you is overly broad or overly specific - you've already proven that you aren't above digging at pointless semantics. If you want to make a point, make it. quote:I already explained why I don't see the scene as arousing or titillating when taking into account the cultural context, but you missed the point and decided I was arguing that "everything else around you is already attempting to arouse and titillate you, this shouldn't even be on your radar!!" I was not. A lot of what you're saying seems to boil down to "this wasn't sexy enough to be objectionable". Actually though she does comply with the expectation that a female character's sexiness or lack thereof is zeroed in on and established in exacting detail. I don't actually care to haggle with you over how modest her bra was in comparison to the outfit displayed in the typical Victoria's Secret photoshoot or whatever. The scene is premised on Marcus being thrust into a sexy situation, and while the reaction she's scripted to have is admirable but, taking a step back, the injection of the scene into the narrative is not. quote:Well, there you appear to have constructed a sarcastic strawman caricature of a filmmaker and his dumb thought process behind the scene. It's easy to make something sound dumb that way; too easy for me to take that seriously as a compelling form of argument. I wasn't being sarcastic. That is an honest attempt by me to summarize the point. The difference between this and a kung fu werewolf in a tiny jacket who beats Kirk up over his impropriety is one of degree. Whether the speech bubble hanging over that picture of Alice Eve reads "Turn around!" or "Come play now, my lord" doesn't really matter to criticisms of the image.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 06:55
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Whether the speech bubble hanging over that picture of Alice Eve reads "Turn around!" or "Come play now, my lord" doesn't really matter to criticisms of the image. So its okay to take the screencap out of context with how the scene plays out in the film?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 06:59
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I don't want to deal with you triumphantly activating your trap card because whatever answer I give you is overly broad or overly specific - you've already proven that you aren't above digging at pointless semantics. If you want to make a point, make it. I had guessed that you keep avoiding the answer because whatever you say might be overly broad or overly specific. See, I have no particular trap in mind here, I honestly am not sure what exactly you were getting at with the pandering accusations. It wouldn't be a trick question except that you're trying to avoid exposing your own trick: you want me to just ignore the big hole at the center of your argument by continually dodging my poking at it. The point is that the scene is only pandering to a vague hypothetical group of people who may or may not exist until you form a compelling argument otherwise. I'm trying to get you to nail down who you're talking about and thereby ground what you're talking about- Who is being pandered to, who is being titillated, whose expectations are being completely complied with? Who "expects (either due to a sense of entitlement or just weary resignation) to be pandered to by being shown a woman in her underwear"? The problem is you want to accuse the scene of being pandering "juvenile titillation" but you refuse to say who it's pandering to, and as I already pointed out no actually existing person needs to pay to see this film to see a woman in underwear. quote:A lot of what you're saying seems to boil down to "this wasn't sexy enough to be objectionable". Actually though she does comply with the expectation that a female character's sexiness or lack thereof is zeroed in on and established in exacting detail. I don't actually care to haggle with you over how modest her bra was in comparison to the outfit displayed in the typical Victoria's Secret photoshoot or whatever. The scene is premised on Marcus being thrust into a sexy situation, and while the reaction she's scripted to have is admirable but, taking a step back, the injection of the scene into the narrative is not. It's not that it wasn't sexy enough to be objectionable, its that it wasn't sexual enough to be an example of sexual objectification. The relative modesty of her bra does matter here, because women wear similar outfits in contexts that are not necessarily sexual, such as going to the beach. Obviously in the film Kirk is sexually attracted to Marcus, but for the audience to briefly see a woman in such an outfit is not necessarily sexual. You've changed which expectations we're talking about here, and I'm not sure what "exacting detail" you're referring to. Again, the scene works with the rest of the film because it develops both characters. quote:I wasn't being sarcastic. That is an honest attempt by me to summarize the point. The difference between this and a kung fu werewolf in a tiny jacket who beats Kirk up over his impropriety is one of degree. That wasn't a good summary because nobody has really been saying what you said, and not in the dumb way you put it either. People have been arguing that the context and details should matter when interpreting the scene, not that its simply better to sexually objectify a woman/female character if you make her "like, totally annoyed about it". Context changes how I interpret an image. If a similar brief shot of the same actress occurred in a different movie instead, but this time she was standing on a beach would you still have the same criticisms? Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 07:40 on Jun 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 07:29
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:I had guessed that you keep avoiding the answer because whatever you say might be overly broad or overly specific. See, I have no particular trap in mind here, I honestly am not sure what exactly you were getting at with the pandering accusations. It wouldn't be a trick question except that you're trying to avoid exposing your own trick: you want me to just ignore the big hole at the center of your argument by continually dodging my poking at it. So the thing is, it doesn't actually matter who's being pandered to, "pandering" is a useful shorthand. I'm not sure whether the forces that work to ensure that disproportionately large swathes of media pointlessly sexualize their female characters think that they're raking in the heterosexual man/homosexual woman dollar or whether they themselves are literally just two guys who control all movies and just love babes or what. Obviously there are plenty who were successfully pandered to/titillated/whatever phrase you want to use (several of them testified here in this thread), but what percentage they make up of Earth's population is totally immaterial. quote:It's not that it wasn't sexy enough to be objectionable, its that it wasn't sexual enough to be an example of sexual objectification. Context isn't the same thing as details. If this were the sexy fun The Enterprise Crew Goes To The Beach movie, you wouldn't see me complaining about the mere fact of the existence of shots of Carol Marcus in a bikini. It's specifically the detail of Marcus being annoyed at and unimpressed by her gawker that's being cited in the scene's defense. But, so what? Like I said, you could put any number of speech bubbles over that shot of her from the trailer, and whether the dialogue and attitude afforded to her were flirty, or cold, or outraged, or whatever, you'd have the same basic problem that STID looked down at its wristwatch and was like "Holy moly, I almost forgot that I had a female character over here! Hang on, I'll throw something together-"
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 07:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
You're arguing that context isn't important. That's utterly absurd. Context turns what could have been shameless exploitation of a female character into strong character development for not only her but another character as well. Edit: I'll even agree that in the trailer, that shot is pointless sexualization. "Oh look! This movie has a sexy lady in a bra! Lets go see it!" That is because the trailer is missing the context of the scene itself as it plays in the full film. jivjov fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Jun 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2013 07:58
|
|