Yeah, that makes a lot more sense. A lot of misogynist basement dwellers religiously follow a magazine aimed at women with a focus on health, beauty, and fashion topics. Though I'm still waiting for the "how do I get my neckbeard softer, washing or beard oil?" comparison.
The GB Backlash was not necessarily "new=bad", it wasn't even the all-female lead cast. The backlash, I think, can be traced down to two separate issues that again come down to one formula: It didn't deliver to expectations.
First, Sony originally (stupidly) billed it as a sequel, not a reboot. This was changed soon, but fans of the old series were already hyped over a sequel. When they backpedaled, they did so with too little effort, probably to keep the hype rolling but ignoring that the hype was for a fundamentally different movie.
The second is Paul Feig as director. Don't get me wrong, I think Feig is a good director, I have seen some of his movies he did before and they are awesome. Hilarious. Watch Bridesmaids and Spy. But, and this is the problem, Feig's humor is based on parody, situational comedy, character comedy and slapstick. All very good things if delivered well (and usually he knows how to do it), but the problem is that GB was a horror comedy. And it took the horror element pretty serious. Feig can't deliver that. His humor is mostly dependent on ridicule and innuendo. Both ruin any serious aspect a movie could possibly have.
So people went into the movie expecting a horror comedy and maybe even something of a sequel/continuation of the old movies. What they got was a sitcom version of GB. Had it been billed as a GB spoof, it would have received praises, because it would certainly work as such. I'm serious. Go and watch GB2016 with the idea that you're watching a parody.
People were pissed about Ripley? Where? When? I honestly don't know a single person who thought that her being female was bad. The worst I have heard from someone was that he was surprised a woman could pull it off.
Most people didn't give a fuck about what gender the lead has. The movie was good, the alien was awesome, the effects were, well, effective and the suspense was there. Mostly because you had an investment in the character and you were interested in her survival.
I think this mostly stems from the fact that back then nobody felt the urge to use every other scene to showcase that she is actually a woman and that she can do it. What also helped was that she did have her weak spots that made her human and relateable. That's what's missing today. Instead we get bland and uninteresting Mary-Sues like Rey and movies that dump the story to pretend they're progressive because "look, we have a FEMALE lead!" is more important than telling a compelling story that makes you interested in the characters and their problems.
You mean after the superbowl trailer aired? The time when pretty much all of the US and a sizable portion of the rest of the world learned about this movie's existence?
It could be that Black Panther is a pretty obscure name, even for comic book enthusiasts (and not really being one anymore, I can't even say that I have any idea who or what that's supposed to be). Captain Marvel is something even I know, despite him/her/whatever not even making it across the pond in any measurable way.
It would maybe be more interesting to see the "intention" numbers for better known superheroes.
The other option is that superhero fans are a vocal bunch and don't want yet another feminism vehicle instead of a superhero movie. If you dress up an agenda piece as something else, you don't turn it into something else, and I guess people are catching on.
Maybe, just maybe, people are sick of movies becoming more and more an agenda vehicle and a tool to "send a message" instead of telling a fucking STORY.
And to stop the "but how would you know it's just a feminism flick and doesn't have a story when you haven't seen it": Extrapolation from previous experiences. Every single goddamn movie where the makers had that urge to cram a female lead in for no other reason than having a female lead sucked. Not because of the female lead, but because the movie revolved around the "look, we are so progressive, we have a female as the lead character!" instead of actually telling a STORY.
Remember Alien? Remember Ripley? There you have a strong female character with everything an action character needs and without the overarching need to tell the audience every other second that she's a woman and that she can do it. And guess what, the movies were awesome!
Especially when they become pretty much interchangeable. Back when I was young and actually took an interest in comic books, superheroes had their fitting counterparts in the villains. To think Batman would be pitted against Lex Luther was as silly as thinking Superman would hunt the Joker. And not only because Bruce Wayne has striking similarities in Lex Luther when you think about it.
Today, that distinction doesn't exist anymore. Any superhero can pretty much replace any other, take a plot for Spiderman and thrust Thor in and it's just gonna work just as well.
All people still care about is the ridiculous bickering about this or that character having the wrong gender. But to be honest, that's at least entertaining. The movies, they ain't.
To be honest, "Captain Marvel" sounds more like a publisher's self promotion. I mean, would you want to watch a movie about a superhero called "The Amazing DC"?
Vaccination is a matter of statistics and probabilities. How likely is it to catch a disease? How likely is it to have severe, permanent negative effects from it? How likely is a severe, permanent negative effect from a vaccine against it?
I give you that it's kinda useless to vaccinate against a disease that only exists on the other end of the planet and you don't plan to go there. It's not worth any risk a vaccination may present. But when dealing with measles where infection is near certain if you get close to an infected person, severe permanent negative effects are about 1 in 500 to 1 in 1000 from infections and about 1 in a million in vaccinations, it's a no brainer.
Ok, I'm curious, where is the "censorship" in that? You can test and try everything, but at least do it properly. Ignoring what doesn't fit your pet hypothesis is closer to censorship that throwing it out when it is proven to be bunk.
That's about as orthodox as it can get, isn't it?:)
But it needn't even be written in a book from long ago. B is readily accepted if it's easy enough to wrap their mind around, no matter how harebrained. Which gives me the hope that it might be that people really want to understand, that they don't want to believe blindly. Even if they eventually do.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that makes a lot more sense. A lot of misogynist basement dwellers religiously follow a magazine aimed at women with a focus on health, beauty, and fashion topics. Though I'm still waiting for the "how do I get my neckbeard softer, washing or beard oil?" comparison.
The GB Backlash was not necessarily "new=bad", it wasn't even the all-female lead cast. The backlash, I think, can be traced down to two separate issues that again come down to one formula: It didn't deliver to expectations.
First, Sony originally (stupidly) billed it as a sequel, not a reboot. This was changed soon, but fans of the old series were already hyped over a sequel. When they backpedaled, they did so with too little effort, probably to keep the hype rolling but ignoring that the hype was for a fundamentally different movie.
The second is Paul Feig as director. Don't get me wrong, I think Feig is a good director, I have seen some of his movies he did before and they are awesome. Hilarious. Watch Bridesmaids and Spy. But, and this is the problem, Feig's humor is based on parody, situational comedy, character comedy and slapstick. All very good things if delivered well (and usually he knows how to do it), but the problem is that GB was a horror comedy. And it took the horror element pretty serious. Feig can't deliver that. His humor is mostly dependent on ridicule and innuendo. Both ruin any serious aspect a movie could possibly have.
So people went into the movie expecting a horror comedy and maybe even something of a sequel/continuation of the old movies. What they got was a sitcom version of GB. Had it been billed as a GB spoof, it would have received praises, because it would certainly work as such. I'm serious. Go and watch GB2016 with the idea that you're watching a parody.
People were pissed about Ripley? Where? When? I honestly don't know a single person who thought that her being female was bad. The worst I have heard from someone was that he was surprised a woman could pull it off.
Most people didn't give a fuck about what gender the lead has. The movie was good, the alien was awesome, the effects were, well, effective and the suspense was there. Mostly because you had an investment in the character and you were interested in her survival.
I think this mostly stems from the fact that back then nobody felt the urge to use every other scene to showcase that she is actually a woman and that she can do it. What also helped was that she did have her weak spots that made her human and relateable. That's what's missing today. Instead we get bland and uninteresting Mary-Sues like Rey and movies that dump the story to pretend they're progressive because "look, we have a FEMALE lead!" is more important than telling a compelling story that makes you interested in the characters and their problems.
You mean after the superbowl trailer aired? The time when pretty much all of the US and a sizable portion of the rest of the world learned about this movie's existence?
It could be that Black Panther is a pretty obscure name, even for comic book enthusiasts (and not really being one anymore, I can't even say that I have any idea who or what that's supposed to be). Captain Marvel is something even I know, despite him/her/whatever not even making it across the pond in any measurable way.
It would maybe be more interesting to see the "intention" numbers for better known superheroes.
The other option is that superhero fans are a vocal bunch and don't want yet another feminism vehicle instead of a superhero movie. If you dress up an agenda piece as something else, you don't turn it into something else, and I guess people are catching on.
Maybe, just maybe, people are sick of movies becoming more and more an agenda vehicle and a tool to "send a message" instead of telling a fucking STORY.
And to stop the "but how would you know it's just a feminism flick and doesn't have a story when you haven't seen it": Extrapolation from previous experiences. Every single goddamn movie where the makers had that urge to cram a female lead in for no other reason than having a female lead sucked. Not because of the female lead, but because the movie revolved around the "look, we are so progressive, we have a female as the lead character!" instead of actually telling a STORY.
Remember Alien? Remember Ripley? There you have a strong female character with everything an action character needs and without the overarching need to tell the audience every other second that she's a woman and that she can do it. And guess what, the movies were awesome!
especially if some joker with a flame thrower and a case of Molotovs is around and about.
You see, I'm a guy of simple taste. I enjoy dynamite, and gunpowder, and gasoline! And do you know what they all have in common? They're cheap.
Especially when they become pretty much interchangeable. Back when I was young and actually took an interest in comic books, superheroes had their fitting counterparts in the villains. To think Batman would be pitted against Lex Luther was as silly as thinking Superman would hunt the Joker. And not only because Bruce Wayne has striking similarities in Lex Luther when you think about it.
Today, that distinction doesn't exist anymore. Any superhero can pretty much replace any other, take a plot for Spiderman and thrust Thor in and it's just gonna work just as well.
All people still care about is the ridiculous bickering about this or that character having the wrong gender. But to be honest, that's at least entertaining. The movies, they ain't.
Why, is Captain Marvel a woman now?
(Genuinely asking, I don't care enough about comic book movies to know)
To be honest, "Captain Marvel" sounds more like a publisher's self promotion. I mean, would you want to watch a movie about a superhero called "The Amazing DC"?
You should vote a party in that ends those wars and gets more social equality going in your country!
Oh. Wait. You can't.
Should others do (insert random thing)? Yeah, sure! Me likey very much!
Are you going to do (insert same thing)? Well, no, not really, it ain't that important...
All this answer does is tell me people do NOT care about their privacy.
Zuckerberg Testifies in Congress.
It's about the best summary I could think of.
Of course there is no legal solution. Who makes the laws?
Do it in, say, North-Sweden, even IF they escape they freeze before they could do any harm.
Vaccination is a matter of statistics and probabilities. How likely is it to catch a disease? How likely is it to have severe, permanent negative effects from it? How likely is a severe, permanent negative effect from a vaccine against it?
I give you that it's kinda useless to vaccinate against a disease that only exists on the other end of the planet and you don't plan to go there. It's not worth any risk a vaccination may present. But when dealing with measles where infection is near certain if you get close to an infected person, severe permanent negative effects are about 1 in 500 to 1 in 1000 from infections and about 1 in a million in vaccinations, it's a no brainer.
Nah. I'm just misanthropic. I don't single out races, sexes, genders or other petty bullshit, I hate all people equally.
Porn is still something I can avoid if I don't like it. At least try finding a parallel that is more than whataboutism.
Well, he did create new life.
On the other hand, we do know that he really exists, so... probably not.
In other words, the meme of the future will be "fuck her only if she's sneezing".
We smart ones can tell the difference between getting laid and breeding.
Mostly because we don't believe in ridiculous nonsense that keeps us from using means to prevent unwanted side effects of fucking.
Anyone else would be in jail by now for these practices.
Ok, I'm curious, where is the "censorship" in that? You can test and try everything, but at least do it properly. Ignoring what doesn't fit your pet hypothesis is closer to censorship that throwing it out when it is proven to be bunk.
That's about as orthodox as it can get, isn't it? :)
But it needn't even be written in a book from long ago. B is readily accepted if it's easy enough to wrap their mind around, no matter how harebrained. Which gives me the hope that it might be that people really want to understand, that they don't want to believe blindly. Even if they eventually do.