Cinema Paradise - the Movie Thread Transformed

[Malcador]

Well, that was the joke, people bring it up when some dude lights up his school, etc. Aggression isn't violence necessarily, anyway, people certainly need to find healthier outlets for it based on commuters' behaviour

[Chilloutman]

not getting what you two are now saying, I am probably too stupid. Anyway I think I won this argument

Edited June 19, 2018 by Chilloutman

[Malcador]

not getting what you two are now saying, I am probably too stupid. Anyway I think I won this argument

Thought he was referencing people who bring up masculinity and violence when there's a school shooting and people respond with "well, not all men.." as a parry. But really, women can enjoy killing as much as men, so a female marine being the Doom protagonist still works. And again, the basis is some marine taking on Hell solo for some reason, so realism's out the window and on fire at this point,no ?

[Chilloutman]

Jeesus you really like to derail any specific discussion about facts, its really hard to talk about something with you as you dodge the second you don't have any fact to based your points on

 

You:

 

''Well, that was the joke, people bring it up when some dude lights up his school, etc. Aggression isn't violence necessarily, anyway, people certainly need to find healthier outlets for it based on commuters' behaviour :lol:''

 

First paragraph of article I linked:

 

In almost every society men are the ones who are overwhelmingly involved in wars, in all kinds of intergroup aggressions and intragroup homicide; they mobilize themselves in armies of violent fans, in criminal gangs, in bands of thugs, etc. These observations are as old as the world and have allowed us to create a clear distinction between male and female sexes regarding their predisposition to violence. Wars are a biosocial product of men and a field for male’s manifestation [Goldstein, 2001]. The same thing is true of crime and cruelty, which are closely linked to masculinity.

 

Yes, reason why mostly (all?) school shootings are by male is because males are more aggressive and cruel. I never disputed it soo why are you bringing it up at all?

[Malcador]

Well, as you said aggression is a term, and plenty of people are aggressive without being violent, didn't say I was refuting anyting you linked. And was trying to explain TN's joke to you a second time, thought it was pretty clear what he was getting at, so not much more to it.

[Chilloutman]

well than I am sorry but I am probably thick, I don't know what is that joke or why its funny

[Malcador]

Sorry if I am coming across as rude. It being funny is one thing aside from the rest...

[algroth]

Not that I care overly much about any Doom film or its protagonist's gender, but for the sake of argument I will say that the 'change' is a dodgy one for me, not because of any opposition to a female-led Doom per se but because it does reek of studio cynicism at its most transparent - but hey, it's a videogame adaptation and Hollywood gonna Hollywood. Nevertheless I do feel that there are better ways of changing the leading role's gender than merely announcing that "this former guy will now be a gal": the new Star Wars films are an easy good example of this as they present the new leads as a new generation of characters inhabiting the world alongside the old as opposed to a "reimagining" of the original party in something of a reboot; even better though is Mad Max: Fury Road, where the film really all about Furiosa's story but instead of presenting her as a Mad Maxine, Max acts as something of a viewpoint character and witness through whom we see Furiosa's story develop. Both are cases where the saga's focus shifts towards a character of a different gender whilst "respecting the canon" of those worlds up to that point and so on. For Doom's case you could very easily make this non-issue an even smaller non-issue just by setting the events as following the DoomGuy's exploits or happening in parallel and in a different place to the same (or even make the main protagonist a team of protagonists though I assume the fact that it's one person against the armies of Hell is part of the saga's appeal), merely setting the "DoomGal" as a different character to the "DoomGuy" and so on. But, eh. Doubt I'll be seeing it either way.

[injurai]

Studios for some reason don't like taking risks on original material that center's around female protagonists. Instead they are given the left-overs in the form of rehashes, and marketing campaigns drum up drama to convince people that you need to lap up the output to affirm your progressive stance. People are allowed to enjoy them, but it's crazy how much those asking for much more get shouted down as somehow guarding secretly held biases. The studio heads are the one's hiding behind their low effort remakes.

 

We need more films like Annihilation or Lady Bird. Mad Max is a great example of introducing a female centerpiece to a story without stooping to gender-swaps.

[Hurlshort]

 

yes as latest 'adaptations' as new Ghostbusters or Star Wars are really killing it in movies... And are you now agreeing with sexualisation and exploitation of wamen?

 

 

You know, this seems like a purposefully obtuse sentence, so lets pick it apart. I'm not sure where the Star Wars reference comes from. Solo is the only Star Wars film that seems to have struggled, and it is about a male character, Han Solo. Alternatively Rogue One did tremendously well and is driven by a female lead. 

 

Ghostbusters may have flopped, but you clearly have more female leads capable of carrying a box office than in any time in Hollywood history. TN wasn't even making a judgement on that, he was just pointing it out as a possible reason for the Doom decision. 

[Blarghagh]

Yes to more movies like Annihilation, plz.

[Gfted1]

"Obtuse", lol oh lordy. Aside, Ive never once based my decision to go see a movie based on the gender or race of the characters. Weird.

[Hurlshort]

"Obtuse", lol oh lordy. Aside, Ive never once based my decision to go see a movie based on the gender or race of the characters. Weird.

 

 

 

I don't want you to get into a mental blockade over He-Man. Go with Thor, or Spider Man or whatever. In these cases the original is destroyed in favor of the new flavor. Why is this the solution instead of just making a new character?

 

 

I'm having trouble reconciling these two statements...

Edited June 19, 2018 by Hurlshot

[Volourn]

"Ghostbusters may have flopped, but you clearly have more female leads capable of carrying a box office than in any time in Hollywood history. TN wasn't even making a judgement on that, he was just pointing it out as a possible reason for the Doom decision."

 

SW had a female character that was new. GB was a remake whose entire purpose was not a good film but pushing agenda. The directort of GB happens to be a man who hates men and it showed throughout the movie.

 

Nobody is anti female lead. Again, Alien was made DECADES ago. It is a favorite of many a male movie goers.Starred a woman.

[Gfted1]

 

"Obtuse", lol oh lordy. Aside, Ive never once based my decision to go see a movie based on the gender or race of the characters. Weird.

 

 

 

I don't want you to get into a mental blockade over He-Man. Go with Thor, or Spider Man or whatever. In these cases the original is destroyed in favor of the new flavor. Why is this the solution instead of just making a new character?

 

 

I'm having trouble reconciling these two statements...

 

 

No doubt you are! But Im going to pass on jumping back into this discussion with you. Its all good.

[Amentep]

Studios for some reason don't like taking risks on original material that center's around female protagonists.

 

Fixed that for you.

[Blarghagh]

And it's easy to see why. Not a lot of original material making box office splashes these days.

[Hurlshort]

I don't know, it seems like the same as it has always been. At least with all the streaming channels we are getting some good original content.

[Amentep]

I'm not claiming its new, just that it is.  While you could argue that Hollywood became more risk averse as they moved more and more into the blockbuster era, the truth is that they've been risk averse from the beginning - its a popular medium which has to appeal to wide audiences.  Even when the studios owned the cinemas that showed the movies or were able to force distribution through block scheduling, risks were taken on personal projects by people with the influence to get them made, not as a regular thing.

[injurai]

I think a good point can be made that a lot of today's diversity of media is a result of decades of creative exploration and risk taking. The market is far more open to creative endeavors, and the barrier to entry is much smaller.

 

Just about anyone can put together a pilot that explores something new. The question these days is often whether there is room in the market. Cash flows are the great limiter. It's only really the max budget films that are truly risk adverse. Plenty of smaller studios get by by counting on 1 in every 10 productions to massively oversell expectations. A24 is a good example of a studio that does this. Of course risk is often mitigated by only bringing on the most promising film students that come out of the academys, but that is a whole other conversation.

[Amentep]

There are certainly lower barriers to entry, and with digital cameras the ability to do higher quality image (compared to the days of 35 & 70 mm hollywood films and 16 or 8 mm for ultra low budget affairs).

 

But lets face it most of indie film-making where risks are taken are passion projects by people who push them through to completion and very few of those will get any kind of real distribution or genre material - like horror films - that are, in their way, evergreen.  And even then the majority of films are going to be lucky to get shown through festivals, much less a wider distribution platform.

 

At this point distribution is (IMO) the problem with getting riskier material, theaters don't want to risk showing it, distributors don't want to risk distributing it even if some enterprising filmmaker makes it on their own dime.

[ShadySands]

What We Do In The Shadows. I don't know if it was because I was daydrinking most of the day but I thought it was hilarious

[Zoraptor]

WWDITS is getting two TV spinoffs, one centered on vampires and the other on the werewolves.

 

I always wonder how well things like Boy or Hunt for the Wilderpeople or WWDITS translate overseas as they have a lot of in jokes and specifically kiwi stuff (eg Huia and Crumpy's Ute in Hunt) without being quite as... direct as something like Once Were Warriors, but most people seem to like them anyway.

[Blarghagh]

Yeah, I don't know about specific kiwi stuff but I adore both of those.

[ShadySands]

Same, I'm sure there were a lot of references I missed but I still enjoyed it a lot.

 

In other news all Star Wars spin off movies are on hold for now as they focus on their core movies.