Discussion in 'Films' started by Salen, Mar 3, 2016.
The physical pain being headaches.
That's on you. When I read comments on trending Facebook news, that is (as I always say) because I'm a glutton for pain. Not because I hold some unrealistic expectation that other people's opinions will always acquiesce to what I consider easy reading.
I was being a snarky boy. Although I'm in general physical pain for other reasons.
1: I said they seemed like MRAs in their initial videos on this movie that I saw when they came out
2: are you really going to accuse us of being like Christians while continually saying that we nonbelievers don't understand the material, and that if we truly study it all flaws we perceive will disappear? Really?
3: yeah, if you call women "females" like you just did, then say you aren't being sexist, I'm going to severely doubt your ability to detect sexism.
4: yeah, saying something had sexist undertones or that it sounded like what MRAs are saying is so much like faith in invisible stuff. Yeah. OK.
But do all criticisms of this movie seem like they are from that of the perspective of the men's Rights Movement? Or is it just certain ones? I would like some clarity there as I do have my own reservations of this film and it's not from the cast being female but mainly the writing and directing. The cast was fine for me and even if the cast was all men I still wouldn't think the movie would be all that great thanks to its story writing and direction. Heck I can understand people who didn't like the force awakens and not because its main character is female. What about people who are saying they didn't like the new Dark Tower film? Are you going to start saying people who didn't like it are racist because it's main actor is black? For me casting is not the only thing that goes into a good film it is storytelling it is acting and direction and one can criticize a film no matter who or what it is centered around. Heck I can remember people calling James Rolfe a sexist because he didn't want to see the Ghostbusters reboot and it was the thing that made me reconsider my positions.
I do apologize if I want a little bit political there now but I do have some valid questions there
I would politely suggest, as someone who saw the movie, thought it was okay and promptly afterwards didn't give it very much thought at all, that the act of insistently proclaiming your views on the movie a year after release is itself more revealing of motivation than the actual opinions being stated.
Sure, you may think the writing was crap or the direction terrible--those aren't sexist criticisms at all! You may have even said the women were funny, imagine that! But if in a sea of movies with identical issues (lord knows we're not experiencing a shortage of comedy movies with shit writing and direction), an insistence on obsessing over this particular film suggests this might not be a case of ethics in movie criticism after all.
Hang on, what? Is that your argument? 'Him choosing this film over all others reveals his hidden sexist agenda'? Are you saying this film should be exempt from criticism, or is there some hidden timer on how long you can wait to review a film, and him doing it now breaks that timer?
I mean he reviewed the prequels years after they came out, is there some hidden agenda there? Or are you arguing that this film in particular should be given a free pass because... why? Why is it not okay to review this film, but okay to review a ton of others? You said yourself it's not because of sexism, so why is reviewing this film seen as a bad thing?
You forgot the word "insistently".
(Pictured: Ratin8tor trying to understand Flynn's post.)
Actually, yes, I think this is a fairly uncontroversial point. Criticism is political, and the choice of what you do 90-minute takedowns of reflects on your motives and goals as a critic. This isn't some backwards-message-on-a-record thing, this is just acknowledging that the choices made in criticism inherently reflect on the critic, for good or for ill.
And actually, just to elaborate a bit, it's worth noting that this statement:
Applies just as well to the side of people that love the movie and still talk about it. As MB and others have shown, the act of praise can itself be political. A person incessantly hyping up Wonder Woman often does so not just because the film was, in point of fact, very good, but also because of its importance and stature as a woman-dominated film. These things exist in tandem, especially when dealing with art that's been overtly politicized because of its representation, and it's somewhat silly to pretend that one side simply doesn't exist because it isn't explicitly mentioned.
So, by extension, any negative criticism of Wonder Woman is also sexist because it's negative, even if the criticism is about the story or something? Isn't that just an easy way of silencing any negative criticism by linking it with sexism, thereby allowing one to dismiss the argument?
That's not "by extension" that's "by flagrant misunderstanding".
Firstly, to add to Flynn's point, they've done at least 4 videos on Ghostbusters 2016 (arguably 5, since there was one about "Plinkett's next review"). The only movie in the last year that they've given more attention is Star Wars: Rogue One, which IIRC had 5 videos about it. No other movie from 2016 or 2017 had more than 3 videos about it, unless one of the "best of the worst" videos put something like Transformers the Last Knight up to 4. One of the Ghostbusters videos was about "science man" or something explaining how almost none of the preliminary hate GB2016 got was based on misogyny. So, that's a thing.
2: no, there are plenty of people who didn't like this movie for reasons aside from sexism. But sometimes non-bigoted reasons for not liking a thing are a thin veil, and it's often easy to see through them. For example, if someone loved the first Ghostbusters movie, including the ghost blowjob scene, but were turned off by the "gross out humour" in the new movie (one queef joke, the same kind of slime jokes the first movie made, and a joke about how the slime got into "every crack") then it's a good sign they're really just misogynists, since the only "gross out humour" in the new movie that wasn't in the first revolves around their femininity.
3: Even a lot of the "I just don't want to see a classic get remade" or "remakes are all bad" critics based their complaints in sexism, since so many of them (including RedLetterMedia) pointed out how PC it was to make the cast mostly female, using "PC" as a negative quality. And it seems that the same people rarely use that much vitriol against a reboot *unless* there's "PC pandering". Like, a fair amount of hate went to the Robocop reboot, but no one left Twitter over death threats, and even though Spider-Man:Homecoming was the third Spider-Man series in 15 years, the same "don't remake a classic" folks spent their time whining about MJ being black & Flash Thompson being brown.
4: I'd also like to point out that Plinkett, the character, is way misogynistic. While characters being one way doesn't mean the creators are, the fact that several jokes in the Plinkett reviews are based on women being mistreated by a misogynistic serial killer is telling.
You have to be purposely misinterpreting things, man. I don't believe you're that dumb. Knock it off.
You have to admit that the fourth point is utterly hilarious. You'd like to point out that the horrible psychopath serial killer is a misogynist, wink wink.
Also I don't know if you know this, we'll keep it on the down low. Anthony Hopkins played a psychotic cannibal, wink wink.
I've watched those four videos, the picture you've painted is so horribly off base.
You know, as little as two years ago I readily defended the Plinkett persona as a scathing critique of nerd culture, implicitly linking the pedantic and nitpicking style of the reviews with violent misogyny, but the more reviews he's done, the more I feel like it's an excuse to say misogynistic things while hiding behind a shield of "oh, that's only the character saying those things!". Certainly the more I actually watched of Stoklasa the less I believed there was that much irony to the Plinkett character.
My counter to that is he is fully behind Rey in TFA, in fact he likes that movie more than I do. He loves Sigourney Weaver in Ghostbusters and the Alien franchise, etc. The more I think about all the Plinkett reviews he actually really doesn't say anything that would be considered misogynistic. Even the creepy things aren't misogynistic, they're just creepy. Which is obviously the whole bit.
"He doesn't hate all women in movies, therefore he's not a misogynist! HONEST!"
My hang up here is that I'm just really honestly trying to understand where you guys are coming from, I just can't fathom the conclusion that's being drawn. Especially as someone who regularly watches their content, which I keep on saying because I think that's an important point, I'm left scratching my head.
"HE DON'T LIKE MOVIE ME LIKE, ME THINK HE BAD MAN!"
Have you actually read what they've been saying? Look, I don't watch Plinkett, but Ben, Critic, Flynn, and Jim have always been good at explaining their points of view in depth using the experiences they've collected. How you can't fathom where they're coming from at this point is probably less fathomable
When did I mention a movie? My inexperience with RLM leaves me unequipped to discuss them. Right now we're talking about the manner in which you're defending them, which falls right in line with "Not All Men"-type thinking. And you haven't moved off of it. You've come up with singular rebuttals in applicable categories: Rey for characters, and Sigourney Weaver for actresses. That's not a strong case
Since when? Because I haven't seen you asking anyone for clarification of their points; I've seen you arguing that they're wrong and foolish.
I'm trying to understand the points that have already been made. But they hold as much water as a hula hoop.
Impossible. How do you know how much water the points hold if you can't understand them to begin with?
Carter, just give up mate, you're never gonna win. They won't even watch the video to prove us wrong, what makes you think they're gonna listen to arguments? They've already come to their conclusions, nothing you say or do will change that.
I tried to save them Zeus, I tried!
Yep, the points were just too profound.
Well, let's look at one of Carter's arguments here:
The first think you might notice is this isn't an argument. This is a statement. An actual argument would require further reasoning to support the statement being made. Which, in all fairness, Carter has provided on occasion throughout this discussion, but the vast majority of his replies here are some variant of "you guys are totally wrong about this", with no further elaboration. Given that, if there's one side that's apparently "come to their conclusions" and not gonna listen to arguments, I don't think it's ours.
Except we present our evidence (the RLM review), and you guys don't watch it, so we're unable to make further reasoning because you won't accept the initial evidence. A statement made about the video is wrong, we say it's wrong, and then it gets argued over whether it's right or not because the side making the claim isn't going to watch the video to prove their point. If the video got watched, then you could probably easily point out why we're wrong, but without doing so, we're left telling you a fact, and that fact being ignored for various reasons.
If it'll make you stop whining, I'll give the assholes some extra traffic and watch the stupid Plinkett Ghostbusters video, though my initial points still stand. Hell, I even included a specific thing they said in one of the earlier videos that I remembered, and none of you refuted it, which makes me think your refutation of anything I bring up will just be "nuh-uh"
Separate names with a comma.