Another Feminist Movie Crashes and Burns

[Farm Boy]

Moana didn't leave. She converted her agrarian fishing village from a traditional, optimizing and iterative waste not want not society into a roving band of marauders near as I can tell.

I mean sure. The fantasy is "let's go meet new friends!" Rrrrright.

 

[Patine]

Moana didn't leave. She converted her agrarian fishing society from a traditional, optimizing and iterative waste not want not society into a roving band of marauders near as I can tell.

I mean sure. The fantasy is "let's go meet new friends!" Rrrrright.

Although, to be fair, as highly questionable and dubious, even repugnant, from an ethical point of view as it is to people today, that was pretty standard fair for Polynesian tales.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Moana didn't leave. She converted her agrarian fishing village from a traditional, optimizing and iterative waste not want not society into a roving band of marauders near as I can tell.

I mean sure. The fantasy is "let's go meet new friends!" Rrrrright.

My bad. I was actually basing my understanding on something you said in the first post where you mentioned her, which I apparently misunderstood. I should have stuck with John the Savage as sole example.

 

[Farm Boy]

Ok, I need to pivot then on how you're meaning "savage." I think that's the word I was tripping up on. I was meaning more "feral." I think what you're saying I put earlier as "Free-will vs Predestination." For my DC dubious friend, I think it echoes this entire spoiler-of-Man-of-Steel-clip

Spoiler Man of Steel is worth a watch if you haven't :

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Ok, I need to pivot then on how you're meaning "savage." I think that's the word I was tripping up on. I was meaning more "feral." I think what you're saying I put earlier as "Free-will vs Predestination." For my DC dubious friend, I think it echoes this entire spoiler-of-Man-of-Steel-clip

Spoiler Man of Steel is worth a watch if you haven't :

First things first, I always list Man of Steel first among the exceptions to my usual panning of DC movies in general. It is great for numerous reasons, one of which is that it does explore issues of character (which I think Marvel movies generally do far more of than your dismissal as 'action porn' would indicate) in a very solid way. Another, which I cite more often but don't consider to be a really better reason is that the only foe who can make Superman interesting is another, better, superman, like Zod.

Back at the savages. I think pre-destiny vs free will is beyond where I was trying to go, though maybe in the same direction. I'm more in the freedom vs security range.

I know, as Civ players we are always tossing around that famous quote about trading a little liberty for a little security and deserving neither, and I agree with it generally. But it only becomes true, IMO, at a certain point. At a certain point a little MORE liberty for a little MORE security is a bad idea, but at some origin point we started from the total liberty of raw survival of the fittest do whatever you feel the need to do. Back at that point if no liberty was traded there would never have been any security at all. The "noble savage" has stopped at a different point; a point where we might even look and say 'yeah, dude, where you are it is still a good trade.' And in looking at that we are prompted to wonder whether maybe we also stopped just a little short of optimum, or perhaps we have gone too far.

That, to me, is Brave New World reduced to its most basic essence. The trading of liberty for security creates a spectrum where neither extreme is good, but where is the sweet spot, exactly?

 

[Berzerker]

I liked the Tomb Raider films, but I'm a sucker for just about any adventure involving archaeology and myth or religion (and Jolie). The Terminator and Alien series are typically identified as feminist but in a way they seem a bit sexist, or started out that way. What made Alien and Terminator was the seeming weakness of the lead being chased around by an unstoppable evil.

To be terrorized you need to put yourself into the lead's role, male or female, and it's just harder if the lead is a badass. Compare Sarah Connor with the guy who came back to save her, he was the badass even though he was over matched by Arnold.

One of my favorite lines came from Aliens when Ripley tries to 'man up' Bill Paxton's character when he's losing it. 'game over man, game over'. Ripley tells him this little girl has survived months surrounded by these creatures and Paxton tells her, 'put her in charge'.

 

[Patine]

I liked the Tomb Raider films, but I'm a sucker for just about any adventure involving archaeology and myth or religion (and Jolie). The Terminator and Alien series are typically identified as feminist but in a way they seem a bit sexist, or started out that way. What made Alien and Terminator was the seeming weakness of the lead being chased around by an unstoppable evil.

To be terrorized you need to put yourself into the lead's role, male or female, and it's just harder if the lead is a badass. Compare Sarah Connor with the guy who came back to save her, he was the badass even though he was over matched by Arnold.

One of my favorite lines came from Aliens when Ripley tries to 'man up' Bill Paxton's character when he's losing it. 'game over man, game over'. Ripley tells him this little girl has survived months surrounded by these creatures and Paxton tells her, 'put her in charge'.

Three movies I quite liked that had a definite political message - one that many people missed about certain actors' self-indulgence or distracting or annoying esthetic elements as the only thing they even brought up or that registered with them - and while it's a political message that is not one of the big ones dominating today, and one that has faded in prominence in the modern zeitgeist, except to a few (like myself) who like to point out it hasn't actually GONE AWAY, but it was a big issue in the U.S. - and the WHOLE WORLD - at the time these three movies were being released - except the latter two. I'm referring to the Star War prequels - underappreciated and overlooked masterpieces, in terms of their overarching storyline.

 

[Arwon]

I didn't think Black Panther was as good as everyone thought it was. For me the best aspect was the motivation of the villain. I found it refreshing.

I really enjoyed how it turned the most problematic and difficult aspects of its own setting and source material into the plot of the movie.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, it probably moves. Zod's security has gone so extreme that it's back to total "liberty of raw survival," right?

I also like the Marvel movies, poo is a little fun to fling tho. The first Thor is good. I like the early treatment of The Hulk. Ragnarok is legit fun. I've missed a lot of the Marvel installments though, including the second half of whatever the medley one is called, so it's not like I'm going to take a concentrated swipe at it's quality. It's very very good at the puff parts. The stinker DC movies would be better with some more puff.

Three movies I quite liked that had a definite political message - one that many people missed about certain actors' self-indulgence or distracting or annoying esthetic elements as the only thing they even brought up or that registered with them - and while it's a political message that is not one of the big ones dominating today, and one that has faded in prominence in the modern zeitgeist, except to a few (like myself) who like to point out it hasn't actually GONE AWAY, but it was a big issue in the U.S. - and the WHOLE WORLD - at the time these three movies were being released - except the latter two. I'm referring to the Star War prequels - underappreciated and overlooked masterpieces, in terms of their overarching storyline.

I just threw up a little in my mouth. After the original three, I tried to get my son through the prequels. We couldn't do it, they just suck too hard. All the charm of international trade agreements and political intrigue! I'd have done better with C-Span 2. Heck, or at least A Lion In Winter or something.

 

[Berzerker]

I'll have to watch Labyrinth and Man of Steel

My problem with Avatar was that final battle. Let's be real here, if that battle were taking place in reality the technology gap alone means the humans would have ROFLstomped the Na'vi.

I thought the technology gap favored the humans until the planet (life) went to war with them.

 

[Commodore]

I thought the technology gap favored the humans until the planet (life) went to war with them

Still should have been a victory for the humans. Especially since their objective was just to destroy that tree or whatever it was. And since they were going to just drop a big bomb on it anyway, why choose the dumbest way of delivering the payload? Strap that sucker on a missile or kinetic rod and drop it on those blue bastards from orbit. Or at least have your bomber flying high enough that their "air force" can't get to it. Once that tree is destroyed, there would be nothing to direct all the wildlife on the planet against the humans and then it would be a simple mop-up operation against any remaining Na'vi resistance. And if that doesn't work and worst comes to worst, send a message back to Earth and tell them to ship in some chemical weapons and gas the Na'vi out. It may seem extreme, but if I remember right, Earth was on the brink of collapse and Pandora was the one hope for survival so it was a "we must take this planet at all costs" scenario for the humans.

Basically ole Papa Dragon there was a crap military commander who didn't fully leverage his technological advantage over the Na'vi.

 

[Gorbles]

Are you saying all politics are equally valid and appealing to watch films about?

Nope! I recommend reading the quoted post again.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Nope! I recommend reading the quoted post again.

I already read it twice before replying. My reading of it was something like:

"People are criticising this film, and films like it, for their unpopular political message, stating that's why no-one wants to see it and it's making no money [whether or not this is true is another matter of course, but not relevant to this argument]. Funny how they don't criticise this other film that had a totally different political message that doesn't appear to be unpopular and has made loads of money and won awards."

The only thing the two seem to have in common is "political message", but you're drawing a comparison between them and acting like there's some inconsistency between criticising one and not the other, as if the claim had simply been that any political message is bad, which it wasn't.

 

[Gorbles]

I already read it twice before replying. My reading of it was something like:

"People are criticising this film, and films like it, for their unpopular political message, stating that's why no-one wants to see it and it's making no money [whether or not this is true is another matter of course, but not relevant to this argument]. Funny how they don't criticise this other film that had a totally different political message that doesn't appear to be unpopular and has made loads of money and won awards."

The only thing the two seem to have in common is "political message", but you're drawing a comparison between them and acting like there's some inconsistency between criticising one and not the other, as if the claim had simply been that any political message is bad, which it wasn't.

The specific claim was relating to inserting politics into a movie, either in advertising or in content. The problem with singling out feminist content for this is it means the posters in question aren't examining their own bias for what is considered acceptable. A feminist movie shouldn't be considered bad just because it's feminist and people not into feminism don't like it, or the message contained. That's not anything approaching an "objective" measure of a film's quality by screenplay, framing of the shots, writing, etc. It's objecting solely on the political message which is subject entirely to personal i.e. subjective approval.

There's also a reason I raised The Last Jedi earlier on (notably I got no pushback to that more fleshed-out post), because it was slammed by the usual alt-right and right-wing folk for being needlessly (progressively) political, but it made a bazillion dollars and in general is classed as a massively successful movie.

My core point is simple: people who object to feminist and progressive messages in a movie never complain about other types of political messaging, if they even recognise any other types of political messaging at all. Which means this objection solely to feminist messaging is a shallow and ill-thought out critique

 

[Manfred Belheim]

You didn't reference any one person's specific claim. If by specific claim you mean this:

"feminist movies are bad because they have something related to politics around it"

Then yes you addressed that, but that was a specific claim of your own construction which appears to be a distortion of claims actually being made. i.e. pretty much the "all politics are equally unappealing and not entertaining" thing that I said, but who is saying that? Surely the criticisms of these "feminist films" (whether or not you agree that they even are) revolve around what the politics actually are, not merely that politics come into them.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think you can safely say "people will generally pan a movie with strong political content if it forwards politics they happen to disagree with."

 

[Gorbles]

You didn't reference any one person's specific claim. If by specific claim you mean this:

"feminist movies are bad because they have something related to politics around it"

Then yes you addressed that, but that was a specific claim of your own construction which appears to be a distortion of claims actually being made. i.e. pretty much the "all politics are equally unappealing and not entertaining" thing that I said, but who is saying that? Surely the criticisms of these "feminist films" (whether or not you agree that they even are) revolve around what the politics actually are, not merely that politics come into them.

We're both speaking in generics here. The difference is, my post was directed at people in the thread that chose not to reply, while you've taken it upon yourself to nitpick my posts, while inferring things on behalf of other unnamed posters. Get specific, and then I'll engage in a discussion. Otherwise this just seems like a very weird fixation on the stuff I post, and the stuff I post alone.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

We're both speaking in generics here. The difference is, my post was directed at people in the thread that chose not to reply, while you've taken it upon yourself to nitpick my posts, while inferring things on behalf of other unnamed posters. Get specific, and then I'll engage in a discussion. Otherwise this just seems like a very weird fixation on the stuff I post, and the stuff I post alone.

Actually I was going to say the same thing (as in the "get specific" part), as I don't really know who your initial 'all these "feminist movies are bad because they have something related to politics around it" arguments' was aimed at. The OP is about the financial viability of selling a particular political take that is not popular with audiences. Others are basically "I don't like this film because I don't like the political message". I haven't really noticed any that fit specifically into your mold of "this is a bad film because it has a political message in it". Maybe point one out and I'll see what you mean and see if I agree with you, or them.

Also it's rather muddled in that that initial post of yours that I responded to was about the quality of the film, but then you just brought the financial success of The Last Jedi into it, which is a different concern altogether. Perhaps more in line with the OP, but then "feminist movies are bad because they have something related to politics around it" doesn't represent the OP well at all.

So yeah, all a bit confusing actually. If you want to point out an actual post you think represents what you were saying I'll look at that.

 

[stinkubus]

Road to Perdition was also based on a classic Japanese story - Koike & Kojima's Lone Wolf and Cub - demonstrating that those adaptations can work just fine. That's if Sergio Leone's "Dollars Trilogy" Westerns with Clint Eastwood weren't already proof enough of the concept - A Fistful of Dollars is an adaptation of Yojimbo, for example.

A Fistful of Dollars was not an adaptation. It was plagiarized. Kurosawa's production company sued Leone and the matter was settled out of court for 15% of the film's worldwide gross.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Fistful_of_Dollars#Legal_dispute

 

[Socrates99]

Kinda back on topic, does anyone else think that the hamfisted strong female leads in scifi and action movies aren't actually about politics at all? Birds of Prey is a bad example because Harley, Canary and Huntress are all their own characters and badass in their own right. Theres rumbling that Daniel Craig's Bond successor will be female, Natalie Portman will take over for Chris Hemsworth plus other gender swapped roles. Is it really about attempting to draw a female crowd to genres that are traditionally sausage fests? Less political, more capitalist.