Alphagaia wrote:Why is it bad people want to add something new to a character to set it apart from previous incantation and why is that action feminist just because the actrice is Feminist?
I don't thing you seem to understand the feminist movement. A feminist's role is to present women in more powerful ways. If Emma Watson is a feminist of course it makes sense she'd apply what she's learned to movies she's worked on. Why is it bad to start adding stuff? Why should she? Why fix what ain't broke? Here's the answer: she's a feminist and has to prove something. She belongs to the type of feminist movement that tries to find inequality everywhere. You and Juror talk about paranoia but Watsons is the one who feels to mess with the character of Belle
who was a strong female character already!
SpaceBallz wrote:If it's forced it's pretty damn cringey, bro. I have no issues with strong women characters, but changing the original material and it's an "in-your-face" message it's cringey.
You hit the nail on the head! It's worse if you were a fan of the original movie as well.
scythemantis wrote:Gender is virtually never even mentioned.
Off the top of my head in the Extended Cut the team spend a minute wondering whether the FBI have genitals. One minute!
As for finding problems where none apparently exist that way of thinking doesn't really work all the time.
JurorNo.2 wrote:Some detractors just don't want to admit they overreacted to nothing. Others seem to have developed a Pavlovian type complex where the mere sight of women triggers cries of "Agenda!!!"
If it's obvious and reported about in articles everywhere yeah it's an agenda.
JurorNo.2 wrote:"Cringey" has become Internet speak for "look how cool I am." It's the girls in High School who giggle, "OMG, I can't believe she just SAID that!"
OMG? Blood blood what is witch you?
JurorNo.2 wrote:Here we go again, lol. Everything with women is now jinxed as a horrible agenda. What a world...
I know, ask Ashley Judd. What a
nasty woman. Not as nasty as Hitler aka Donald Trump, not as nasty as Pokemon players, not as nasty as...ok sorry I couldn't resist.
Kingpin wrote:Compare Mattel's Ghostbusters figures to Diamond's, and then compare both of those to Marvel's Mighty Heroes line, and then tell me they all take the same amount of effort as each other.
Don't Diamond make statues? If I'm correct that's quite a difference.
Kingpin wrote:Being able to spot CGI doesn't make you an expert in the field, it doesn't mean you actually know what goes into making CGI elements in film and television, it just means you're observant. If you've studied 3D computer graphics/3D computer animation in higher education then that'd make yours an informed opinion, but I think from prior conversation we've established you didn't study it at university.
You're right, I never studied 3D animation but I do have a keen eye for detail that sticks out like a sore thumb. I can for instance point to the flaws of the original Ghostbusters SFX. I can also try to understand today's animation for kids, it's fair to say Saturday morning cartoons are now extinct. I think studios should try to create animation that visually engages with kids instead of cutting cost for simplicity. I'm not sure why that's impossible to do but it's kids today who are ultimately missing out.
Kingpin wrote:Meanwhile you're prejudiced.
No I just take issue with changing stuff for the sake of it.
Kingpin wrote:Because maybe Belle was a bit underdeveloped as a character? That Emma wanted to give the character a bit more substance?
You can accuse the original animated movie of many things but Belle being underdeveloped
definitely isn't one of them. She was a great character with a huge amount of development so I'm left with my original question: why make changes when they weren't necessary?
Kingpin wrote:I guess that's 1-1 on both sides, as you didn't respond to my question about religious influence on films.
I didn't really want to get into that debate because I don't see the relevance.
Kingpin wrote:Ghostbusters 2016 for me appears to have been the exception to the rule of his work and McCarthy's - something more palatable than the standard.
I agree to an extent, I just feel Feig wasn't pushing enough to make the reboot movie less one of his standard ones.
Kingpin wrote:This isn't meant to be any sort of threat, but I would strongly urge you to consider how you phrase things in future here, as remarks like that are likely to go down poorly with some of the members here.
Equality is extremely important. My issue is with equality being misused for political ends. It no longer becomes about equality but pushing inequality for selfish reasons which ruins what we enjoy. I'm not right and I'm not left. I sit in the middle like a tennis umpire and facepalm when one or the other tries to argue they're better.