Ho-ly crap this thread is devolving fast into the realm of words meaning whatever the hell we as individuals want for them to mean on a societal level and damned be anyone in that social sphere whose definition of that word comes from facts and resources! They're just anti free-speech non-Americans! Fuck them they shouldn't be speaking right!
wokeness in 2019 is part of the SJW ideological purity test. Who agrees with me? Barack Obama
Try again
Hey I didn't know we were playing the who could throw out the craziest nonsense definition for a word contest. I wanna play!
Wokeness in 2019 is the brand new concept of butt fucking an albino penguin for recreational purposes and you can all go right to hell if you disagree! Who agrees with me? Donald Trump AND it cures cancer!
Try again!
So are we ever going to TALK about this or are you just going to keep fascistically spouting politically motivated stance tag-lines onto the screen and hoping that the world accepts the word for what you feel like it should mean in spite of such easily acquired debumking tools like the Google Dictionary?
What even is this anymore? Are we allowed to just make up whatever crap we like, get all our friends to say it and then 'tadaa' its OUR word now?
Who do I need to go to if I want to claim the word Smudge to mean anytime that an existing word gets redefine it into a politically motivated slant with the hopes and dreams of dehumanizing an opposing viewpoint? Can we just call those people Smudge's now and since we all decide that its a thing, it's no longer recognizable as an insult?
Like I could say 'Dazzle1 and his ilk Smudged Woke' or 'Femina Smudged Smudge' and it apparently wouldn't be insulting because a small subset of society has claimed it as true?
Who do we go to for that?
Too bad none of you paid attention to my orginal post. This was no bashing female led movies it was bashing pc/woke tripe.
The same way I would expect you to be offended if we had a 1950 style helpless crying female on Star Trek
Too bad none of you paid attention to my orginal post. This was no bashing female led movies it was bashing pc/woke tripe.
The same way I would expect you to be offended if we had a 1950 style helpless crying female on Star Trek
Just as I did warn you in my first reply that, the term 'woke' itself is enough to cause trouble. If you didn't want a political shitstorm, you should have named your topic something like 'An analysis of whether or not sexism towards males in current Hollywood films cause them to go bankrupt' rather than something politically charged and motivated. Still would have devolved into a political shitstorm, but at least you'd have a leg to stand on that you didn't WANT it to.
You made your point of view and opinion blanket obvious in the Title, naturally people who disagree with that point of view and opinion turned up. This is a pretty cut and dry example of attracting the obvious.
But I guess some people get outraged when someone has a different opinion.
Sign of small mindness
Indeed
Though of course, this is only true when ones opinion harms no one but themselves. The moment ones different opinion begins to directly or indirectly cause another human being harm, it becomes a harmful opinion. As random example, one cannot hold the opinion that they are free to murder whomever they like, and seek immunity from outrage, nor is it small minded to be outraged by such a thing.
This has degenerated into such a silly conversation "your a bigot", "no, your a bigot". Is this what passes for reasonable discourse nowadays? If you guys were in a room together, there is a better likelihood that this conversation would be more civilized, that you might have a good back and forth discussion about wokeness unless you guys are grade A a-holes who find it easy to be rude face to face with total strangers. It's this anonymity of the Internet in my opinion that sort of gives us permission to say things that we might not otherwise say without any kind of attribution to our real selves, that we hide behind these usernames and allow ourselves to start little arson fires without any thought that while they may not be calling 911 for any 5 alarm fire, they are not contributing any valuable insights on either side of the issue either. I think subconsciously in our minds, it's easier to trash someone named bushwackerbob, or GeekyPornCritic, Tallyho, or someone named maskripper, and conclude that they are not real people (we are Russian bots here to influence the 2020 Presidential election) but there are real genuine people behind these monikers. I do believe that it is possible to be a proponent of the right of women to be treated equally in all types of business and industries, and careers, to be aware of and recognize that there are gender inequities across all companies and industries, and at the same time believe that this wokeness is sometimes used as a battering ram to beat folks into submission if they do not share these ideas 100% with our fellow human beings. Just because someone does not conform 100% to someone else's idea of being woke does not automatically make him a misogynist pig. If being woke causes this type of toxic, bitter, uncivilized conversation than I am going back to sleep! LOL.
This has degenerated into such a silly conversation "your a bigot", "no, your a bigot". Is this what passes for reasonable discourse nowadays? If you guys were in a room together, there is a better likelihood that this conversation would be more civilized, that you might have a good back and forth discussion about wokeness unless you guys are grade A a-holes who find it easy to be rude face to face with total strangers. It's this anonymity of the Internet in my opinion that sort of gives us permission to say things that we might not otherwise say without any kind of attribution to our real selves, that we hide behind these usernames and allow ourselves to start little arson fires without any thought that while they may not be calling 911 for any 5 alarm fire, they are not contributing any valuable insights on either side of the issue either. I think subconsciously in our minds, it's easier to trash someone named bushwackerbob, or GeekyPornCritic, Tallyho, or someone named maskripper, and conclude that they are not real people (we are Russian bots here to influence the 2020 Presidential election) but there are real genuine people behind these monikers. I do believe that it is possible to be a proponent of the right of women to be treated equally in all types of business and industries, and careers, to be aware of and recognize that there are gender inequities across all companies and industries, and at the same time believe that this wokeness is sometimes used as a battering ram to beat folks into submission if they do not share these ideas 100% with our fellow human beings. Just because someone does not conform 100% to someone else's idea of being woke does not automatically make him a misogynist pig. If being woke causes this type of toxic, bitter, uncivilized conversation than I am going back to sleep! LOL.
A reasonable 'face to face' discussion between adversarial party's about 'Get woke go Broke' would never happen in the real world because that room would be a circle jerk of right wing assholes patting themselves on the back for their genius without any dissenting voices to be heard, because dissenting opinionated people wisely chose not to put themselves in a position to be bullied by a bunch of silly's who organized a discussion titled 'Get woke go Broke' and believed it acceptable and necessary. Of course I've already supplied my solution for this sort of thing further up, title your discussions reasonably and you can hold off this sort of political nosedive a bit longer.
I mean... You don't see any topics getting made here utilizing 'left wing' extremist insult terminology that often, but basically every week someone thinks its fine to open a discussion advertising 'snowflakes/wokeness/etc' who believe they aren't being assholes. That's not on us, we didn't advertise this discussion, it was advertised to us, and nature took its course. I'd firmly expect that if I started up a topic that said 'Nazi Pricks Eat Dicks' about a nonsense extrapolation of rampant homosexuality in right wing circles that I'd be shouted out of the room for opening that can of worms, and rightfully fucking so!
You're right that it's easier to be rude anonymously, but it's the only place in the world a discussion like this can even occur outside of an echo chamber... that said, I agree this conversation has degenerated into nonsense long ago... just maybe for different reasons.
I'll go further than that. Some people are just giant flaming assholes. And since being a giant flaming asshole in private is impossible, and being a giant flaming asshole in public often gets you punched in the face, internet forums are prime territory for giant flaming assholes. They are perfect for reaching an audience with giant flaming assholery, without the risk of facial reconstruction. Trolls make provocative posts, start provocative discussions, then sit back and revel in the commotion their giant flaming assholery generates. And it only works because we fall for it. And by we, I most certainly include me. But I'm trying to change. I'm trying to not give the giant flaming assholes what they want, which is attention. I keep failing, but I'm trying. Join me, netizens - pledge to ignore a giant flaming asshole today. If we take away their oxygen, maybe they'll fuck the hell off.
Message received. Next time anyone on here wants to open a discussion on being woke or any other political topic we will go to Femina to make sure it is ok that we title these discussions "reasonably" so that these discussions don't degenerate into name calling. Yeah, of course you are right, the problem with this topic is "the title" and not the actual content and discourse among board members. Next time we will get your permission and advice before titling our topic. That's a new one. In the real world I hope a face to face discussion would have people of both points of view having an actual productive, civilized conversation. Who said anything about bullying? Fun little tidbit, those types of conversations still happen in the real world and many do not have "right wing assholes or snowflakes" as adversaries, just people with different points of view talking who might gain insights into the others viewpoint, radical concept I know but it does happen. Yes I do think it is fine to open a discussion (maybe not every week) to question things, whether they are movements, ideologies, issues of the day, and I don't think one is being a right wing troll or asshole to bring those issues up. Dissent is not a seven letter curse word, I personally think of it as a personal rhetorical exercise in which we humans use to articulate our skepticism at one another 's world view so that we may yet get a better understanding of one another and add to one's wealth of knowledge and experience. I just do not think that "nature taking it's course" is automatically being an asshole because someone said something one did not like or agree with, that's not nature, that's putting something out there toxic and uncivilized, that's hiding behind a keyboard thinking you have done your good deed for the day. That's cowardice.
Message received. Next time anyone on here wants to open a discussion on being woke or any other political topic we will go to Femina to make sure it is ok that we title these discussions "reasonably" so that these discussions don't degenerate into name calling. Yeah, of course you are right, the problem with this topic is "the title" and not the actual content and discourse among board members.
She is right. The alt-right meme fallacy title is a beyond obvious clue to the thread starter's intent: trolling.
The 'actual content and discourse' was the consequence of the alt-right meme fallacy title, and the OP post, and every follow-up thread starter fallacy post.
Message received. Next time anyone on here wants to open a discussion on being woke or any other political topic we will go to Femina to make sure it is ok that we title these discussions "reasonably" so that these discussions don't degenerate into name calling. Yeah, of course you are right, the problem with this topic is "the title" and not the actual content and discourse among board members.
She is right. The alt-right meme fallacy title is a beyond obvious clue to the thread starter's intent: trolling.
The 'actual content and discourse' was the consequence of the alt-right meme fallacy title, and the OP post, and every follow-up thread starter fallacy post.
Next time we will get your permission and advice before titling our topic. That's a new one.
She didn't ask for the job. Figure it out yourself.
That's like saying the title of a book is more important than what is inside. The content and the discourse was a consequence of people on both sides talking at each other instead of to one another, of a non willingness to want to see the other side, of everybody's defenses getting raised, thus the venom starts. Elizabeth Banks blamed white males for her movie's failure, remember that? Femina talked about warning people of a poorly worded title topic, who gets to decide what is worthy of outrage and what is not, who is she to play arbiter of what is worthy of a title post and what is not? Who elected her forum language cop. She didn't ask for the job because she already thinks she has it judging by her own words.
Message received. Next time anyone on here wants to open a discussion on being woke or any other political topic we will go to Femina to make sure it is ok that we title these discussions "reasonably" so that these discussions don't degenerate into name calling. Yeah, of course you are right, the problem with this topic is "the title" and not the actual content and discourse among board members.
She is right. The alt-right meme fallacy title is a beyond obvious clue to the thread starter's intent: trolling.
The 'actual content and discourse' was the consequence of the alt-right meme fallacy title, and the OP post, and every follow-up thread starter fallacy post.
Next time we will get your permission and advice before titling our topic. That's a new one.
She didn't ask for the job. Figure it out yourself.
That's like saying the title of a book is more important than what is inside. The content and the discourse was a consequence of people on both sides talking at each other instead of to one another, of a non willingness to want to see the other side, of everybody's defenses getting raised, thus the venom starts. Elizabeth Banks blamed white males for her movie's failure, remember that? Femina talked about warning people of a poorly worded title topic, who gets to decide what is worthy of outrage and what is not, who is she to play arbiter of what is worthy of a title post and what is not? Who elected her forum language cop. She didn't ask for the job because she already thinks she has it judging by her own words.
Quit making apples out of oranges. Relax, read my FIRST post on this thread where I did respond to the context of the OP post AND AGREED with much of it! I also warn about where this was likely going to go well before it actually DID go here. I never once said we aren't ALLOWED to title a topic whatever the fuck we like, I don't profess to tell someone WHAT to do, I only refuse to squat in a corner and pretend like they didn't DO it if I think it's wrong or ill advised. You don't want to listen to my advice, fine go start your 'Toxic SJW's are cancer!' thread and complain some more when it attracts people who don't like it. I never said 'Dazzle you are not allowed to start a thread under this title!' I said that IF YOU DO, be it on your own head when it collapses into a politically argumentative shitstorm, and I stand by that advice. There's a whole science to discussion, and it starts by making your discussion as open and warm and friendly and welcoming as possible, and that fucking starts at the title. If you WANT discussion, you make your title warm, friendly, welcoming and CAREFUL. If you DON'T want to do that, if you'd rather open your discussion with memes and insults you're FREE to, but for CHRISTS SAKE don't complain about it when it blows up in your face because it looks REALLY BAD.
We don't get to title our on campus Study Group 'Fuck you Professor Todd' then whine that our free speech is being suppressed because the professor complained to the school board and gets it shut down. Our free speech wasn't suppressed, we were allowed to name it whatever we liked, but we also have to take responsibility for the fact that there were consequences to naming it that, and that we damn well knew we weren't going to get that name passed, we just chose to do it anyway. It doesn't become 'oh you just got repressed by Professor Todd because Todd wouldn't suck it up and ackgnowledge how many fucks you give about him.' Maybe that's fair. Maybe Professor Todd SHOULD have given the group a more decent shake, maybe he'd have learned something valuable... maybe he DID give it a fair shake and got it shut down anyway, we don't always get to know... but the only people complaining that their free speech is being taken away is us, and only because we ended up with a failing grade. We wanted our cake and to eat it too, and wanted Professor Todd to know that we fucking HATE Professor Todd and wanted Professor Todd to just blush and go 'aw shucks, I guess I really am just a useless fuck, let me give you all your A's and hide from your presence now!' We weren't ever really complaining that we didn't have freedom of speech, what we REALLY wanted was freedom of CONSEQUENCE and sorry to say it friends, that just don't exist!
The content and the discourse was a consequence of people on both sides talking at each other instead of to one another, of a non willingness to want to see the other side, of everybody's defenses getting raised, thus the venom starts.
Nope. Dazzle1 was intent on his attack, talking at others and never listening. Sad stubborn manbaby agenda from the start.
Others tried to talk to him for a time, but gave up and changed to talking back at him. Having watched some of it for awhile, eventually I chimed in cause thought it be fun. And it has been. Smacking down idiocy is fun.
Elizabeth Banks blamed white males for her movie's failure, remember that?
Remember something that didn't happen. Nope.
Feel free to prove me wrong and show me where she said this. So I assume this statement happened sometime after the movie's release, and shortly after opening she learned that the box office had been bad, and she then blamed white men for her movie's failure. Is that how it happened? I can't find it tho.
Looking forward to you providing her actual quotes after the dismal box office that support what you say.
Last edited by theScribbler4 years ago, edited 3 times in total.
the Scribbler
If U C Xmas tree on TV show
it's Xmas Activism!
If U C attractive brunette in a movie
it's Dark Haired Women Activism!
Be very careful!
Don't B indoctrinated!
Cover your eyes! & ears!
According to the Herald Sun and Indi Wire and this is before the film even comes out "If this film doesn't make money, it reinforces a stereotype in Hollywood that men don't go see action movies". (Gal Godot in Wonder Woman?) Before the friggin film was even released! Maybe if she said "If this film doesn't make money, perhaps I have made a crappy film" it would have been a more honest depiction of what actually happened. She is putting all of the potential blame squarely on the male demographic. That is akin to saying that a SHP film studio that makes a lesbian girl on girl (female villain) superheroine film, then releases it, and then maybe the sales are disappointing, and then saying that it is the fault of SHP fanbase that only buys heterosexual male villain SHP films, that the hetero/male villain SHP fans are to blame for the dismal failure of the SHP lesbian film. What utter garbage. Is it not the goal of any film (or any other entertainment enterprise) to motivate as many people possible to go to the theatres as possible? And if I choose not to go, am I a man exercising white privlege by depriving Ms. Banks of my 20 bucks at the theatre? Maybe I found something better to do with my time and not light my money on fire, or maybe I decided to see a better movie. The burden is on Elizabeth Banks to make a film the masses want to see, it is not the role of the audience to placate Ms. Banks or to humor her because she is a female director. Perhaps she would like a participation trophy.
According to the Herald Sun and Indi Wire and this is before the film even comes out "If this film doesn't make money, it reinforces a stereotype in Hollywood that men don't go see action movies". (Gal Godot in Wonder Woman?) Before the friggin film was even released! Maybe if she said "If this film doesn't make money, perhaps I have made a crappy film" it would have been a more honest depiction of what actually happened. She is putting all of the potential blame squarely on the male demographic. That is akin to saying that a SHP film studio that makes a lesbian girl on girl (female villain) superheroine film, then releases it, and then maybe the sales are disappointing, and then saying that it is the fault of SHP fanbase that only buys heterosexual male villain SHP films, that the hetero/male villain SHP fans are to blame for the dismal failure of the SHP lesbian film. What utter garbage. Is it not the goal of any film (or any other entertainment enterprise) to motivate as many people possible to go to the theatres as possible? And if I choose not to go, am I a man exercising white privlege by depriving Ms. Banks of my 20 bucks at the theatre? Maybe I found something better to do with my time and not light my money on fire, or maybe I decided to see a better movie. The burden is on Elizabeth Banks to make a film the masses want to see, it is not the role of the audience to placate Ms. Banks or to humor her because she is a female director. Perhaps she would like a participation trophy.
Yeah I'm certainly not defending Elizabeth Banks here. I defended Larson back when because she was being wildly 'selectively' quoted, but Elizabeth Banks just opened up her own can of worms and didn't even TRY to qualify it. With the pretty much phenomenal success of BOTH Wonder Woman AND Captain Marvel, if 'Charlie's Angels' fails at the Box office and you make the claim 'this is proof men wont see action movies staring women' AFTER men have already proven their willingness to support said ventures... right, just to clarify, I DO NOT back Banks on this one. (Also, thanks for swinging this back around on topic). I feel like Marvel/DC have already done all they need to outright disprove that mode of thinking. Black Widow's already looking like it's going to push that thinking even further into the backdrop... hopefully the Wonder Woman 2 trailer looks good when it drops this weekend... I have a hard time imagining that movie failing even if it looks lackluster tbh, since the first one did so well and managed so much good will.
I'd also like to point out that my earlier comments about 'careful discourse' can be pretty notably put on display in the first Wonder Woman film. That's a film that is very much feminist, about a woman coming into her own, choosing her own path outside what she's being asked to do....... but it spoke softly and CAREFULLY, didn't treat its male co-stars as objects or second class characters. That's how you make progress, that's how you reach human beings, not by dropping meme insults on them and asking them to just deal with it, but by finding common ground and working their asses off NOT to make the people they are trying to reach feel defensive. I expect of the many failings of Charlie's angels, one of them may certainly have been that it wasn't delivering a carefully thought out message. Sledgehammers almost never work. (I'm certainly no Wonder Woman in this regard :P)
I thought Wonder Woman was really good, it was an entertaining two hours that just flew by, you can't ask for more than that. I did not feel that they hit me over the head with some feminist dogma, they just wanted to make a fine film and they succeeded. In regards to Captain Marvel, the only time I weighed in on that debate (it got fairly contentious as I recall) was when Brie Larson only wanted female film critics to review her film which sounded ridiculous. Aside from that idiotic comment, I really did not care one way or the other about the film. I did not lose my shit or really care that they were making a female Captain Marvel film and conversely did not care enough to pay 12 bucks to see the film. People voted with their wallets though, and they made it an unqualified success at the box office. Maybe the reason Charlie's Angels failed was not that it sledgehammered a PC woke or feminist message, maybe she simply did not make a movie appealing enough for people to want to go see it, perhaps it is as simple as that.
I am far too lazy to look this up, but I think Larson was referring to a different movie, and I think she said something to the effect of not wanting to read another male review of... I believe her point was not to bash male reviewers, but to point out that there was too little diversity among reviewers.
I am far too lazy to look this up, but I think Larson was referring to a different movie, and I think she said something to the effect of not wanting to read another male review of... I believe her point was not to bash male reviewers, but to point out that there was too little diversity among reviewers.
I looked it up and you are correct, the comments were directed towards a different movie, but unfortunately for her, those comments came to light as she was promoting Captain Marvel. She remarked "I do not need a 40 year old white dude to tell me what didn't work for him about A Wrinkle in Time, it wasn't made for him. I want to know what it meant to women of color, to teens that are biracial" That seems a tad harsh and exclusionary. Larson later added regarding the lack inclusion of women and critics of color "the talent is their; the access and opportunity are not". I may be wrong about this but I think if she had made those statements in a vacuum, that is to say if she were not in the midst of promoting a film, that those remarks would be seen in a more favorable light as a commentary about the gender inequities regarding the lack of female film critics in the industry in general. Instead these comments came to light as she was promoting Captain Marvel and people (me included) misconstrued her comments as a preemptory attack on male film critics, a call to arms against the patriarchy if they did not like Captain Marvel. I think now that Larson's biggest mistake during this episode was not her actual words but the timing of articulating that viewpoint, that it was not the best time to be talking about the lack of female critics when one is promoting a superheroine movie that targets white males among others. Boy, that original topic must have gone over the rails pretty quickly if it went from her actual words to what people misconstrued what she actually meant. Kind of like that game of telephone.
I looked it up and you are correct, the comments were directed towards a different movie, but unfortunately for her, those comments came to light as she was promoting Captain Marvel.
It wasn't unfortunate, it was deliberate dirt-digging done against her. Because...
I think now that Larson's biggest mistake during this episode was not her actual words but the timing of articulating that viewpoint, that it was not the best time to be talking about the lack of female critics when one is promoting a superheroine movie that targets white males among others.
...she didn't say it during the Captain Marvel promotion; the comment was exhumed from a past promotional event, one whose theme was specifically women in film. (June 2018 IIRC, a month before Comic-Con and several months before CM opened. The shitstorm swelled in Feb 2019.)
It wasn't Larson's mistake, it was a cunning hit job.
"I do not need a 40 year old white dude to tell me what didn't work for him about A Wrinkle in Time, it wasn't made for him. I want to know what it meant to women of color, to teens that are biracial" That seems a tad harsh and exclusionary.
Harsh and exclusionary, really? Can you not see what she's saying? She's saying: THIS ISN'T ABOUT YOU. NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT YOU. And really, when her point is that film criticism is, through the same semi-conscious bias and gatekeeping mechanisms at play all over society, harsh and exclusionary toward non white-dude voices?
When women esp women of color's voices are underrepresented in the status quo, what's harsh and exclusionary is when the voice of the white dude is dismissed?
Nah, man.
Now, about Elizabeth Banks -- what she actually said was, "If this movie doesn’t make money it reinforces a stereotype in Hollywood that men don’t go see women do action movies."
She's not saying that men don't actually go see women do action movies.
She's not even saying that her film deserves criticism-free success just because women did an action movie (though she might be asking for a break).
She's saying that every failure, deserved on purely artistic merits or not, feeds the confirmation bias of those with influence in Hollywood.
She's referring to the reality that Black Widow didn't get a movie until now because Ike Perlmutter is a misogynist pig who only recently had his misogynist pigfeet pried from the levers of control. You don't think he's alone, do you?
For white dudes to complain about a little clapback from that level of systemic shittiness is selfish.
And to "open a discussion" about the pendulum of narrative perspective swinging a bit past center with the gleeful sloganistic finger-wagging warning "get woke go broke" isn't just looking for a fight, it's specifically white dudes cocking a backhand toward women.
We're all a little selfish and emotionally clouded sometimes. I'm being selfish posting this after y'all found an uneasy truce.
But we can keep trying to get over that and find better versions of ourselves. Bully to all of you who do.
I am far too lazy to look this up, but I think Larson was referring to a different movie, and I think she said something to the effect of not wanting to read another male review of... I believe her point was not to bash male reviewers, but to point out that there was too little diversity among reviewers.
"I do not need a 40 year old white dude to tell me what didn't work for him about A Wrinkle in Time, it wasn't made for him. I want to know what it meant to women of color, to teens that are biracial"
She ALSO qualified the shit out of it only a few sentences later by adding that she wasn't trying to imply that we should remove people from their jobs and replace them with new people, but specifically that we should be encouraging MORE people to glean perspectives from and provide more in the way of venues and forums (in the communication sense) for those voices to be heard.
She said something to the effect of 'I'm not asking to replace seats at the table, no one should get removed, I think we just need more seats at the table' mere SENTENCES later. It wasn't hard to research at the time, took me like a single google search to find full comment and not just the one solitary sentence the rioters wanted us to be fixated on. All those Youtuber dumb asses who ranted for months about what a sexist she was for the Wrinkle in Time comment each KNEW the full story and deliberately pretended like it wasn't there or, just as bad, were to incompetent to do the barest minimum of research in order to report news to people... and don't get me wrong here, you can mention this stuff in a report and still indicate you don't personally think that its enough. 'Yeah she qualified it... but it was probably still not a fair thing to say anyway blah blah' that sort of thing happens... but they never even MENTION it in those youtube rants and right wing 'journalistic' news sites. It didn't fit their 'boycott Captain Marvel because sexism' narratives to provide anyone reading or listening all the facts to make up their own minds if doing so meant even a mild possibility of that viewer coming to an opinion that wasn't 'Brie Larson is Satan!' so instead they all just conveniently forgot to include it EVERY time.
The content and the discourse was a consequence of people on both sides talking at each other instead of to one another, of a non willingness to want to see the other side, of everybody's defenses getting raised, thus the venom starts.
Nope. Dazzle1 was intent on his attack, talking at others and never listening. Sad stubborn manbaby agenda from the start.
Others tried to talk to him for a time, but gave up and changed to talking back at him. Having watched some of it for awhile, eventually I chimed in cause thought it be fun. And it has been. Smacking down idiocy is fun.
Elizabeth Banks blamed white males for her movie's failure, remember that?
Remember something that didn't happen. Nope.
Feel free to prove me wrong and show me where she said this. So I assume this statement happened sometime after the movie's release, and shortly after opening she learned that the box office had been bad, and she then blamed white men for her movie's failure. Is that how it happened? I can't find it tho.
Looking forward to you providing her actual quotes after the dismal box office that support what you say.
No Scribbler, I put out a valid topic that the outrage mob went woke on it, I will continue to use that term. the same mentality that went ballistic over the Peloton commercial. The person attacks started from your side of the issue
The content and the discourse was a consequence of people on both sides talking at each other instead of to one another, of a non willingness to want to see the other side, of everybody's defenses getting raised, thus the venom starts.
Nope. Dazzle1 was intent on his attack, talking at others and never listening. Sad stubborn manbaby agenda from the start.
No Scribbler, I put out a valid topic that the outrage mob went woke on it, I will continue to use that term. the same mentality that went ballistic over the Peloton commercial. The person attacks started from your side of the issue
No need to play stupid.
Get Woke Go Broke is a rightwing agenda toxic meme as toxic title.
It's a valid topic to right wingers cause it's completely false.
A easily proven fallacy to other people aka those who live in reality.
You attack woke in the dumbest numbskull way possible.
Can't disguise your intent. It's in your OP. 2nd sentence...
"this is an attack on woke movies and TV"
...and by extension people who are woke, or support the ideal of being alert to social and racial injustice.
So when I said...
You were intent on your attack, talking at others and never listening. With your sad stubborn manbaby agenda from the start.
1000% true, accurate, obvious. Yep, no question.
the Scribbler
If U C Xmas tree on TV show
it's Xmas Activism!
If U C attractive brunette in a movie
it's Dark Haired Women Activism!
Be very careful!
Don't B indoctrinated!
Cover your eyes! & ears!
The sad thing is that he's right. "Why did Charlie's Angels and movies like it fail" actually IS a valid topic...
It's just unfortunate that wasn't the title of the topic... we might have made it to page 3 without the hullabaloo
But that's not his topic. That's you creating a non-attacking non-toxic topic that might seem similar but with miles wide different intent, a question that people could consider and discuss. You should start that topic if you want, your way, cause I know it won't be toxic rightwing attack on left values crap, it would be well considered and sensible and non political.
Altho with people like Dazzle1 around, can't guarantee it would stay that way. It would if people ignore that certain person's trolling.
the Scribbler
If U C Xmas tree on TV show
it's Xmas Activism!
If U C attractive brunette in a movie
it's Dark Haired Women Activism!
Be very careful!
Don't B indoctrinated!
Cover your eyes! & ears!
According to the Herald Sun and Indi Wire and this is before the film even comes out "If this film doesn't make money, it reinforces a stereotype in Hollywood that men don't go see action movies".
(Gal Godot in Wonder Woman?) Before the friggin film was even released! Maybe if she said "If this film doesn't make money, perhaps I have made a crappy film" it would have been a more honest depiction of what actually happened. She is putting all of the potential blame squarely on the male demographic. That is akin to saying that a SHP film studio that makes a lesbian girl on girl (female villain) superheroine film, then releases it, and then maybe the sales are disappointing, and then saying that it is the fault of SHP fanbase that only buys heterosexual male villain SHP films, that the hetero/male villain SHP fans are to blame for the dismal failure of the SHP lesbian film. What utter garbage. Is it not the goal of any film (or any other entertainment enterprise) to motivate as many people possible to go to the theatres as possible? And if I choose not to go, am I a man exercising white privlege by depriving Ms. Banks of my 20 bucks at the theatre? Maybe I found something better to do with my time and not light my money on fire, or maybe I decided to see a better movie. The burden is on Elizabeth Banks to make a film the masses want to see, it is not the role of the audience to placate Ms. Banks or to humor her because she is a female director. Perhaps she would like a participation trophy.
Uh-huh. So I asked about you saying she said this...
Elizabeth Banks blamed white males for her movie's failure, remember that?
And you come back with a quote where she doesn't mention WHITE men. And the quote you provide is from before the movie comes out?
First thing, where's the blame WHITE males quote? I suspect there isn't one.
Second...
I don't know how it works in your world, but there's no such thing as blaming someone (or group) for something they haven't done yet. You can express worry like "I hope Joe doesn't drive over my foot and break it tomorrow" but you can't go "I blame you Joe for driving over my foot and breaking it tomorrow." Now if and after Joe drives over your foot, then you can say "Damn it, Joe! You broke my foot!"
Or maybe that's just me. Am I the only one who's never blamed someone or group for a future event?
"You ruined my whole weekend!"
"What? When?"
"This upcoming weekend! Three days from now!"
I could worry that upcoming plans might get ruined. "There's a 50% chance it's gonna rain this weekend and we've got plans. I sure hope it doesn't."
So your entire above post is basically, using your own words: utter garbage. You lied about what she said. And turned her worry into 'she blamed' in a way that never ever happens in real life. Pre blaming is not a thing.
The burden is on Elizabeth Banks to make a film the masses want to see, it is not the role of the audience to placate Ms. Banks or to humor her because she is a female director. Perhaps she would like a participation trophy.
It's not a burden. Every filmmaker wants to make a movie they hope people will want to see.
It's abundantly clear that she tried to make a good movie, a movie she hoped people would like,* would want to see, and hoped it would make money. Some reviewers like it. Maybe it'll find its audience in streaming and disc sales.
A quote, or just a few quotes, pulled from a longer interview is step one in out of context analysis. Prime supposed we-gotcha fodder for right wingers to salivate over as they mangle, spin and lie about it for their own purposes. Right wingers (some of them) love to paint false pictures of people by plucking out a sentence or two, out of context, reading a person's tone and intent wrong on purpose, she's an angry woman, she blames men, she hates men, she didn't say white but she means white men, to make click bait youtube videos and web articles out of it. And as this forum shows, into forum posts and attacks. Falsely painting, accusing and turning Elizabeth Banks into a woman who blames men for her failures, into a cartoon caricature version of who she really is with no regard for reality or truth. Mischaracterizing others and their words is right wing trolls being in their element. They think it's their birthright.
They pulled this same shit with Brie Larson. One sentence out of context, not presented in the tone she actually used when she gave a speech at the Lucy Awards. Cause that's what trolls do. If you watch the speech, note the crowd reception, witness her easy going tone in delivery, it's totally different than the mean, commanding, fire breathing dragon, over the top activist caricature version of Brie that right wing trolls paint her as, for their weak gullible yes men to soak up. "Brie said that! Outrageous! We hate Brie! Boycott her movie! Give it bad reviews tho we haven't seen it!"
No different than what the Nazi's did to the Jews in the 1940s. "Look German people, this is what Jews are, they're vermin, not three dimensional people full of nuance like you and me, not equal, they deserve what we're gonna do to them. Let's attack."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* IndieWire reviewer liked movie and gave it grade B. And concluded with
"Nobody really asked for another “Charlie’s Angels” reboot,
but this one will leave you eager for more.
It seems these women might still have the element of surprise on their side, after all." https://www.indiewire.com/2019/11/charl ... 202188932/
Grace Randolph also said she likes it
(and of course the trolls invaded her channels comments section slamming movie they didn't see, all too typical of basement dwellers with nothing else to do but wait for mom to bring them dinner!)
Video review cued to last part to avoid spoilers...
the Scribbler
If U C Xmas tree on TV show
it's Xmas Activism!
If U C attractive brunette in a movie
it's Dark Haired Women Activism!
Be very careful!
Don't B indoctrinated!
Cover your eyes! & ears!
The content and the discourse was a consequence of people on both sides talking at each other instead of to one another, of a non willingness to want to see the other side, of everybody's defenses getting raised, thus the venom starts.
Nope. Dazzle1 was intent on his attack, talking at others and never listening. Sad stubborn manbaby agenda from the start.
No Scribbler, I put out a valid topic that the outrage mob went woke on it, I will continue to use that term. the same mentality that went ballistic over the Peloton commercial. The person attacks started from your side of the issue
No need to play stupid.
Get Woke Go Broke is a rightwing agenda toxic meme as toxic title.
It's a valid topic to right wingers cause it's completely false.
A easily proven fallacy to other people aka those who live in reality.
You attack woke in the dumbest numbskull way possible.
Can't disguise your intent. It's in your OP. 2nd sentence...
"this is an attack on woke movies and TV"
...and by extension people who are woke, or support the ideal of being alert to social and racial injustice.
So when I said...
You were intent on your attack, talking at others and never listening. With your sad stubborn manbaby agenda from the start.
1000% true, accurate, obvious. Yep, no question.
There is no rightWing agenda of any stature. that is just the way the people who are invested in attacking those who have different views act.
I could have put something less catchy as the very relevant Go Woke Go Broke and many would still object.
Dr who ratings are terrible and if BBC were commercial would have been cancelled in the Calpaldi era
Star Wars makes money but there is not the commercial and merchandise following that the original trilogy had
Disclaimer I don't watch WB's DC offering, but Batwoman has tanked in the ratings
ST Discovery is universaly panned
All are Woke , bash the white male partriarchy
Janeway, Dax or Kira for ST, Mara Jade for Star Wars, Romana for DW are all strong women that male fans love.
I have come around to your point of view on Brie Larson's comments being misconstrued because I did a deep dive into the comments and the context in which those comments were made (I still think her timing could have been better). I should have done a better job at the time in researching the actual context of those comments and not just take the group think consensus of forum members that the comments were directed at film critics that were poised to review Captain Marvel which is factually incorrect. That is on me. I did not make the same mistake twice. Elizabeth Banks said that if her film is not a success that it might be because men do not stereotypically see women in action movies. I have yet to hear another interpretation or different context to her remarks. Ms. Banks made a film that many theatregoers did not want to see. What I would really like to know is that if she really believed that, then why did she make the friggin movie in the first place? Who was her target audience? If you don't like a particular TV show or film, just change the channel. I suspect that audiences at large, by in large don't want male bashing, political messaging shows (unless it is actually about political figures) or socially engineered gender roles. All of this endless haranguing about this topic is pointless because ultimately the people themselves will decide whether these shows survive because if making a great and compelling show or film is not the primary goal of these shows or movies, then they will fail at the box office and in the ratings as well.
Banks' comments were misguided. A hack director, McG, made two successful Charlie's Angels movies years ago. They worked because they were sexy as hell and had three bankable stars as the Angels. Trying to reboot the franchise again without similar star wattage turned out to be a bad idea. Having a female director bring up the sexism card, even obliquely, to explain potential box office problems was stupid. If the 2000 film was successful and Banks' wasn't, the reason lies somewhere else.
Yeah there may really be something to this... I mean I had NO interest in Charlie's Angels... like AT ALL.. and I honestly couldn't tell you off the top of my head WHY. I'd not even heard this Banks stuff until it came up here either... I mean, the broader strokes of why movies do/don't fail have been beaten to death around the world I think... but It makes me a little curious. I don't 'dislike' the McG films, they are campy stupid early 2000's nonsense fun with even a little SHiP nods like a villain who sniffs hair for... presumably sexual gratification so its not like past relevance was TOTALLY against this... but it has been more than 5 years since those films which at least beats the usual statute of relevance.
You know, it's odd about the Charlie's Angels movie doing so so badly! It came and went so quickly it seemed to me. I had mild interest in it but there were many other movies breaking at the time that I was much more keen to see. It felt like it came and went in less than two weeks. Also, not a huge marketing push from the shows I generally watched. It could have opened in a window with just too much better competition.
Follow this link to descriptions of my stories and easy links to them:
"If this movie doesn’t make money it reinforces a stereotype in Hollywood that men don’t go see women do action movies."
Well, that's a pretty fine splitting of hairs. And give the success of the previous reboot effort by McG, it does look pretty lame. If you make a movie and it doesn't succeed, preemptively saying its lack of success perpetuates that stereotype is really a passive aggressive attack on male moviegoers. Many female led action flicks have succeeded. Aliens was huge. Salt did well. Atomic Blonde, Wonder Woman, the Lara Croft flicks, Haywire, the list goes on. Banks was out of line with that comment. She was covering her ass as director and cast too wide a net.
"If this movie doesn’t make money it reinforces a stereotype in Hollywood that men don’t go see women do action movies."
Sorta wish I could read the whole Herald Sun review to see the context of all she said and intended. Well, I realize I could, if I paid for it. At the moment, I don't feel like it.
I've an entirely different reaction than most of you to this quote, but don't feel like tackling it today. But I'll give a clue to what I'll be getting at when I do, if I do.
Seems to me most are reading the quote this way...
"If this movie doesn’t make money it reinforces a stereotype in Hollywood that men don’t go see women do action movies."
I read it this way...
"If this movie doesn’t make money it reinforces a stereotype in Hollywood that men don’t go see women do action movies."
I'll explain what I mean by this later on.
the Scribbler
If U C Xmas tree on TV show
it's Xmas Activism!
If U C attractive brunette in a movie
it's Dark Haired Women Activism!
Be very careful!
Don't B indoctrinated!
Cover your eyes! & ears!
How are you not getting it? It's not splitting hairs, it completely changes the focus and subject and meaning.
Confirmation bias -- people discount new information that doesn't match their existing belief, and remember new evidence that supports their existing belief.
If her movie fails, her movie (and by extension she) reinforces the stereotype, i.e. the existing belief in the heads of the Ike Perlmutters of the world and their gleeful disciples, that men don't want to see women in action movies.
Gleeful disciples who repeat slogans like "get woke go broke." Tell me with a straight face THAT'S not an existing belief trolling for supporting evidence and casting aside unsupporting evidence. Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel should have BURIED "get woke go broke" but no we'll just tweak the meaning of woke -- WW is one of the good ones! -- and keep blustering along. Banks's comment about male franchises is exactly that kind of bias-driven parsing.
Maybe she shouldn't have said anything, because it's just too risky to try to thread PR needles when you're promoting a movie. Maybe she's been insulated in the Pitch Perfect Hunger Games bubble too long. Or maybe she actually knows the stakes of the business she's in and flies without a net because she doesn't like being a wallflower. Maybe she doesn't like every statement being mined for maximum outrage either.
"If her movie fails, her movie (and by extension she) reinforces the stereotype, i.e. the existing belief in the heads of the Ike Perlmutters of the world and their gleeful disciples, that men don't want to see women in action movies."
Her point makes no sense, in that there have been many successful female led action movies. What exactly was her motive for making her film some sort of proxy for the very concept of female action flicks? If she actually believes her film was so important for the genre, she should have made it better. What are people supposed to take away from her making that statement? It's super easy to jump to the conclusion that people better go see her film or more like it won't get made. That's a weird way to market a movie.
It doesn't help anything to pretend like somebody didn't say a factually incorrect thing. We don't have to die on a hill defending something incorrect. Banks said something that was already proven as non-factual. No one's saying 'Ike Purlmutters' don't exist, take a gander into ANY comment section beneath a female lead action film (EVEN Wonder Woman was filled with 'controversial sexist feminist' bullshit right HERE on this very forum until the film premiered and people realized they now looked very silly and that it was actually not what they thought it was) there's ALWAYS some jerk who see's a woman in the trailer without any additional context, scrolls down into the comments and goes 'feminist nonsense!' but that guy has been proven to be an unreliable sample size. Several high profile female led action films released before Charlie's Angels, one of which a particularly active group of people DELIBERATELY attempted to tank and they FAILED because the very thing that Elizabeth Banks points out to be some big factor in her films failure has ALREADY gone through its trial by fire. It's just NOT TRUE... IDK if she BELIEVES its true, maybe she's got a large group of friends who she hangs with regularly who haven't got the memo yet and so she's just mistaken, but Marvel, DC, Angelina Jolie, freaking Alita... all these movies have already proven that the AVERAGE male moviegoer is ready and willing to support action films that star women in variant genres. That's it. That's the facts. I don't know why Banks made her statement, I just know that its a nonfactual one.
So while the question of Why Charlie's Angels failed is a curious one, it isn't going to be solved by scratching our heads of whether or not it was done in by sexism ESPECIALLY since that perceived sexism only reared its head into the debate in a post-release directorial defense. I didn't fail to check out Charlie's Angels because it stared women... I hardly gave the movie a second though. I don't even recall seeing a trailer for it before it released. Something ELSE went wrong, and arguing over whether or not Elizabeth Banks is a sexist is actually neither here nor there.
It doesn't help anything to pretend like somebody didn't say a factually incorrect thing. We don't have to die on a hill defending something incorrect. Banks said something that was already proven as non-factual. No one's saying 'Ike Purlmutters' don't exist, take a gander into ANY comment section beneath a female lead action film (EVEN Wonder Woman was filled with 'controversial sexist feminist' bullshit right HERE on this very forum until the film premiered and people realized they now looked very silly and that it was actually not what they thought it was) there's ALWAYS some jerk who see's a woman in the trailer without any additional context, scrolls down into the comments and goes 'feminist nonsense!' but that guy has been proven to be an unreliable sample size. Several high profile female led action films released before Charlie's Angels, one of which a particularly active group of people DELIBERATELY attempted to tank and they FAILED because the very thing that Elizabeth Banks points out to be some big factor in her films failure has ALREADY gone through its trial by fire. It's just NOT TRUE... IDK if she BELIEVES its true, maybe she's got a large group of friends who she hangs with regularly who haven't got the memo yet and so she's just mistaken, but Marvel, DC, Angelina Jolie, freaking Alita... all these movies have already proven that the AVERAGE male moviegoer is ready and willing to support action films that star women in variant genres. That's it. That's the facts. I don't know why Banks made her statement, I just know that its a nonfactual one.
So while the question of Why Charlie's Angels failed is a curious one, it isn't going to be solved by scratching our heads of whether or not it was done in by sexism ESPECIALLY since that perceived sexism only reared its head into the debate in a post-release directorial defense. I didn't fail to check out Charlie's Angels because it stared women... I hardly gave the movie a second though. I don't even recall seeing a trailer for it before it released. Something ELSE went wrong, and arguing over whether or not Elizabeth Banks is a sexist is actually neither here nor there.
I wish I had the ability to like this post, I totally agree with it. At the end of the day, neither you nor I , Elizabeth Banks, nor any of us really has a definitive idea what it was that caused the average male or anyone else for that matter from staying away from this film. It is all pure speculation and opinion on all of our parts. That is the nub of why I object to her comments, that the mere introduction of her speculation of this stereotypical male non preference for female led action films before the film was even released, she needlessly injected the issue of gender preferences, and more specifically this idea that Hollywood perceives that the average male does not want to see a female led action film. I think that when you introduce issues such as gender and race, it invariably degenerates into a shitstorm, and when one introduces those issues needlessly, it is almost as if one is starting a fight for no reason at all, that there is no greater good or understanding reached when the original comments were factually incorrect to begin with. By the way, if anyone is looking for a good recommendation for a lead female action/adventure TV show, I thought Alias starring Jennifer Garner which lasted 5 seasons starting in 2001 was awesome. Bradley Cooper was actually a cast member on the early seasons as a guy that had a crush on Garner's character, but she relegated him to the James Olsen role in the friend zone. Who knew?
It doesn't help anything to pretend like somebody didn't say a factually incorrect thing.
Prove this statement is factually incorrect.
"If this movie doesn’t make money it reinforces a stereotype in Hollywood that men don’t go see women do action movies."
Hint: you don't need box office numbers, you need studies of the beliefs of studio executives. And maybe anti-woke trolls.
the very thing that Elizabeth Banks points out to be some big factor in her films failure
THAT IS LITERALLY NOT WHAT SHE SAID. That's not her point.
Let me help you, because you keep missing the target.
A STEREOTYPE IN HOLLYWOOD
Not reality. A STEREOTYPE. A dismissive misconception.
A stereotype held in the hearts and minds of the Ike Perlmutters of the world.
It's not true that men don't go see women do action movies. DUH. But the prejudiced ditch facts that don't fit their prejudice and soldier on, and when the prejudiced hold positions of power, and use them to attempt to perpetuate their prejudice, that's a problem.
Please don't tell me you deny that any perceived stumble by people associated with a progressive movement is SEIZED UPON by those who don't like the movement and exploited to delegitimize the movement. Look at the way this is twisted. Look at the way you disassociate from Antifa.
I am truly shocked by the continued misinterpretation.
And before jumping onto the bandwagon of how wrong or out of touch she is, think about her experience versus yours in terms of the challenges women have faced and still face in Hollywood -- not just as actors, but as writers, directors, and producers. We can all point to a few successful women in Hollywood, but that doesn't mean the odds aren't still stacked against them in the entertainment industry. And I hope none of us believes it's only losers online still operating with harmful prejudice.
Charlie's Angels is a misfire. That's a fact. With a truckload of conventional mundane reasons available: a low budget, a lackluster marquee, a struggling studio, an already-rebooted property with a tricky tongue-in-cheek aspect, a counterprogramming release window, and in general hoping for a safe tidepool in a swirling mess of a market.
What do you think will be the main thing people remember about it?
Look I'm NOT disagreeing with you on what she did or did not say. The quote verbatim to me is splitting hairs in light of the bigger picture. I don't personally believe that stereotype in Hollywood about female lead action films exists in any significant enough sense anymore to impede our forward momentum. It might have a decade ago, five years ago maybe even, but not NOW. It's been proven wrong which is why we're finally seeing female lead action films on a fairly regular basis. Not in the same quantity as male lead action hero films yet, certainly not, but we've passed the pivotal moments that could seriously slow anything down.
So maybe Banks only meant 'if it doesn't make money, that's unfortunate, because it'll reinforce something I didn't mean to reinforce.' Okay message received and acknowledged, It certainly can't be proved to be utterly factually incorrect in that instance... you can't outright exile a real longstanding stereotype on any kind of measurable timeline... but I still personally feel like the evidence elsewhere indicates that it is a DYING stereotype. Exactly what Banks said wasn't the crux of my point anyway... it doesn't effect my underlying thoughts here.
All I'm trying to say is that it really doesn't matter what she said, because Charlie's angels failed, and it wasn't because men don't go to see female lead action films, and I don't believe that observing producers are all biting their fingernails and considering canceling their Wonder Woman's and Black Widows in the works because as I said earlier it is a dying stereotype. Too much money has already been made. THAT'S the proof of what I'm trying to say. The money made by female lead action films, the people that have gone to see these movies in the theater, and the movies that are getting made.
100.jpg)
