|
Post by Zarnium on May 28, 2017 18:29:56 GMT -8
So, in case you haven't heard, a theater here in Brooklyn has announced that next week, it will have a number of special screenings of Wonder Woman... for female audiences only. No men will be allowed in. Predictably, the Internet has reacted in its usual polite and completely understanding way. Now, on the one hand, I'm not thrilled that a public theater has decided to capitalize on the gender divide through a comic-book film. Because now the loudmouth fanboys are protesting about the PC culture, and the media is in turn writing long articles "proving" that male comic book nerds are all a bunch of sexists. On the other hand... this is actually a brilliant marketing strategy. Suddenly, the loudmouth fanboys want to see the film, now that someone has given it a "Girls Only" label. Any bad blood left over from BvS and Suicide Squad has been washed away. When DC tells us not to see one of their movies, we want to watch it more than ever! Anyway. I'll try seeing Wonder Woman once it premieres. (At a screening that allows men, of course.) I really hope it finally breaks the DCEU curse. I'm... not thrilled about this, frankly. Sure, as has been pointed out in the media numerous times, it's only a few screenings at a few theaters after the movie has already been widely released, so it's not like men are going to have a hard time accessing the movie. However, this is clearly intended as a political message rather than a practical measure to make sure women are able to view it in safety or something, so I think it's fair to judge the act based on the message it sends, and it doesn't send a good message. If this is not intended as just a big middle finger towards anyone skeptical of feminism, it's definitely being perceived that way, and whoever organized this knows that it would and went ahead with it regardless. Predictably, it will cause a lot of people to complain, which will in turn give liberals an excuse to bash the complainers, and the whole thing will just be a big, angry controversy rather than any genuine attempt by liberals to build bridges rather than drive people away at a time when we really, really need it. This isn't any kind of useful statement, it's just a cynical ploy to give both sides of the debate a reason to shout at each other while simultaneously drumming up publicity for the film. While I'm sure there are plenty of sexist men making improperly hostile attacks in response to this, I'm not going to be bothering to defend anyone involved with this whole shebang. They've dug their own grave. I'm doubly put off from defending them due to articles like this one, which aren't helping the situation. Calling everyone with complaints "stupid" doesn't constitute an actual argument, it's just trying to shame people into conformity because they'll be afraid to be seen disagreeing.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on May 28, 2017 18:44:05 GMT -8
Oh and I basically agree with Zarnium.
|
|
|
Post by Zarnium on May 28, 2017 19:25:19 GMT -8
To rant just a little bit more, another thing I really don't like about articles like the one I linked to is that they reek of someone trying to prove that they're on the "right side" in order to curry social favor as though they need to pay a toll to function among their peers, rather than to actually write an article that helps the people they're ostensibly trying to help. It is as if the author is not actually motivated by a desire to combat mysogyny, but by a desire to not be cast outside with the unclean.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on May 28, 2017 19:32:36 GMT -8
Sure, as has been pointed out in the media numerous times, it's only a few screenings at a few theaters after the movie has already been widely released, so it's not like men are going to have a hard time accessing the movie. However, this is clearly intended as a political message rather than a practical measure to make sure women are able to view it in safety or something, so I think it's fair to judge the act based on the message it sends, and it doesn't send a good message. If this is not intended as just a big middle finger towards anyone skeptical of feminism, it's definitely being perceived that way, and whoever organized this knows that it would and went ahead with it regardless. Predictably, it will cause a lot of people to complain, which will in turn give liberals an excuse to bash the complainers, and the whole thing will just be a big, angry controversy rather than any genuine attempt by liberals to build bridges rather than drive people away at a time when we really, really need it. This isn't any kind of useful statement, it's just a cynical ploy to give both sides of the debate a reason to shout at each other while simultaneously drumming up publicity for the film. While I'm sure there are plenty of sexist men making improperly hostile attacks in response to this, I'm not going to be bothering to defend anyone involved with this whole shebang. They've dug their own grave. I think this gets to the heart of the issue. This isn't like the Ghostbusters controversy, where the anger was unfairly directed at the film itself. It's based around a distributor unconnected with the film, and it's an incident designed to draw attention. I always tell people to judge art on its own merits, regardless of politics - but here, the politics are being foisted on the art by an outside party. (And yes, this is definitely meant as a political statement. Just in case that wasn't clear, the theater has announced that all the proceeds will be donated to Planned Parenthood.)
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on May 28, 2017 20:34:38 GMT -8
Zarnium, for the record, I don't disagree with anything you say here. We should be bringing people together, not dividing them.
|
|
|
Post by unkinhead on May 29, 2017 12:20:39 GMT -8
Well said Zarnium.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on May 30, 2017 2:56:46 GMT -8
It's got 96% positive reviews on RT thus far, and (more notably, to me) a 79 on Metacritic. Now, both of those numbers will invariably fall, and you know the critics want to pull for a female-centric superhero movie while at the same time proving they're not actively prejudiced against the DCEU, but nonetheless, this is a good sign. If it doesn't sink like a stone when the majority of reviews are out, I might give WW a look.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on May 30, 2017 5:07:29 GMT -8
and you know the critics want to pull for a female-centric superhero movie This is literally the first time in history that critics are pulling for a female-centric superhero movie. (Granted, there are only three other female-centric superhero movies in existence. But the critics hated them all.) In any case, this is a good sign.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on May 30, 2017 12:39:17 GMT -8
Hey, they can only do so much when the movies in question are really, really bad. What were the three? Supergirl, Catwoman, and Aeon Flux?
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on May 30, 2017 13:12:21 GMT -8
You got two out of three. I don't think Aeon Flux counts as a superhero film. (Or at least, not in the traditional comic book sense.)
Though coincidentally, the third film I'm thinking of came out the same year as Aeon Flux.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on May 30, 2017 15:25:33 GMT -8
Electra.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on May 30, 2017 15:33:24 GMT -8
Yes. But with a K. (Electra with a C is the dog from Cathy.) Interestingly, today's Honest Trailer spotlighted Catwoman, and even managed to work in an Elektra dig.
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Jun 2, 2017 12:07:22 GMT -8
Meantime, I think I'll avoid the new Pirates of the Caribbean. Three boring and overcomplicated sequels are enough, thanks. You know, I never did understand the backlash with the Pirates sequels. For years people had been (justifiably) clamouring about the stupidity of summer blockbuster franchises such as Transformers and the Fast/Furious movies, and then a series appears which emphasises its characters and requires the audience to get to grips with some complex storytelling (admittedly a lot is MacGuffin), expands its world with each instalment and doesn't skimp on spectacle (a waterwheel chase, a duel inside a whirlpool, a squiddly beard, and a sea of crabs straight out of Herzog beat collapsing nondescript grey tower blocks any day)... and the people don't like it. Well, I was there at the big screen each time and I plan to again for all those future ones, and this is from someone for whom sequel fatigue sets in pretty fast.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jun 2, 2017 12:24:44 GMT -8
I think the second and third Pirates films have a pretty grand spectacle, and there's definitely some ambition behind the camera. But they're also incredibly overlong and are at times ludicrous in their attempts to recapture the swashbuckling mix of fantasy and fun that the original film did so perfectly. And I think the fourth film entirely disproves your point. No world-building, no character-building, and a plot lifted directly from a fantasy novel. It's the very definition of a lazy consumer product.
The first Pirates is a great film (one of the best action blockbusters of the 21st century, IMO) not because of grand spectacle or because of Depp's scenery-chewing, but because it maintains a near-perfect balance of action, adventure, character, humor, and all-around fun. The sequels increasingly get "bigger" and "bolder" than the original film, ignoring subtlety and nuance in favor of convoluted plotting and action.
The Fast & the Furious may be a more straightforward action series, but it's succeeded largely because - particularly in its more recent installments - it puts genuine emphasis on developing its characters. The plotting of that franchise has grown more complicated with time, and the series has never met an unrealistic car crash it didn't love, but it still has its heart in the right place. Would that PotC could learn from that series.
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Jun 2, 2017 14:02:49 GMT -8
And I think the fourth film entirely disproves your point. No world-building, no character-building, and a plot lifted directly from a fantasy novel. It's the very definition of a lazy consumer product. Yeah, that's probably true. I don't actually remember it at all well, though I did think the fountain set was quite magnificent. But the Verbinski pictures all felt to me at least as quite complementary and unified in their approach; whilst I was aware they well getting to be long films, they didn't strike me as bloated or overextended, just organic and expected attempts to 'amplify' the formula. And they still made me laugh, the characters endeared, the ship battles still packed crunch, and so forth. They were genuinely what I wanted from a mainstream franchise.
|
|