|
And that movie was terrible and had the worst version of the Ripley character to date.
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 13:49 |
|
|
Mantis42 posted:And that movie was terrible and had the worst version of the Ripley character to date. As for Resurrection's version of Ripley, it's certainly.. different, and that's intentional. It's the entire reason Sigourney Weaver agreed to star in the movie at all. Whether or not it's good is another matter entirely. I think it was an interesting direction to take the character, but it certainly wasn't James Cameron's Ripley.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
Deakul posted:What do you mean by this? First, it should not be a question of whether Joss Whedon - the mere human person who shits in a toilet - ' is actually a feminist' or simply lusts after kung-fu girls. That reduces everything to a futile search for secret clues about an old dude's ability to maintain an erection, and has nothing to do with feminism. Instead of fighting sexism, that is only fighting 'a sexist' (who may not even exist). It's a waste of everyone's time. Second, it should not be a question of the kung-fu girls themselves should exist in media or not. That puts all the emphasis on the rudimentary plot content and distracts everyone from the actual ideological critique. And to do so is, again, not feminist. The kung-fu girls already exist, they're not going to unexist, and they're a fact to be interpreted. The actual question is what sort of feminism is being promoted, unwittingly or not. And it's just a very basic type of American-style liberal feminism.  The Whedon ideology is easily summarized by this 'campaign ad' where he jokingly claims Mitt Romney will bring about a zombie apocalypse. This mustn't be dismissed as meaningless lolrandomness. Whedon is, after all, a professional writer of 'politically charged' genre fiction. The ad ends with the image above. Pay attention to the sequence of the subtle rhetorical shifts: Whedon warns of the threat posed by dangerous subhuman poors, then alleges that Romney is bad because he "already" sees the poor as dangerous subhumans, then says that Romney and his followers are themselves a bunch of dangerous subhumans. This all amounts to a plea for liberal tolerance. Whedon boasts that he tolerates the poor single mothers, while Romney does not. But Whedon fears that these poor single mothers will pass a certain threshold and become intolerably poor. They'll become violent, perhaps terrorists. They'll riot. This is why he makes the final shift and says Conservatives are the true subhuman: because their intolerance is the ultimate intolerable behaviour - the greatest threat to the smooth functioning of the system. Unless we tolerate poors today, placate them with charity, they will rise up and murder us tomorrow. Note how the point about reproductive rights is linked to the nightmare scenario of a woman being attacked by her own child - both of them made into the abject homeless who are a burden on us all. 'Feminist' Whedon is, first, unable to recognize that poor women already are reduced to intolerable, disgusting, inhumans every day as an effect of poverty. Then, he is not able to reduce himself to a fellow zombie out of solidarity. For a guy who wrote like a thousand hours of vampire drama, he misses the point badly: "It is clear that in classical Hollywood, the couple of vampires and zombies designates class struggle. Vampires are rich, they live among us. Zombies are the poor, living dead, ugly, stupid, attacking from outside." -Zizek Whedon's feminism has certain unspoken limitations. It does not extend to 'intolerable' women - those who are ugly and stupid, belonging to the outgroup... Think of the zombie girl in Cabin In The Woods, who is thoughtlessly killed. Think of the army of zombie drones from the future, that threaten the Earth in Avengers. They get nuked. In the case of this Jurassic Park thing, the 'tell' is that Whedon immediately assumes Pratt is in the right, and skips the most basic question: if Pratt is so smart, and is in a nice equal relationship with the raptors, why is he still working for the corporation that exploits them? SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 07:44 on Apr 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
I think it's funny that when the scene was first brought up in this thread nobody really liked it, but I post a tweet Joss Whedon doesn't like it, hoo boy, that's when it becomes important to defend!
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 08:20
|
|
|
Corek posted:I think it's funny that when the scene was first brought up in this thread nobody really liked it, but I post a tweet Joss Whedon doesn't like it, hoo boy, that's when it becomes important to defend!
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
Don't get me wrong, it's a bad scene, and I think the movie looks really lovely (both aesthetically and dialogue-wise), but Whedon's not one to talk. And ya, he actually wrote Ripley in Alien Resurrection, and go figure, she's suddenly wearing leather fetish clothes, punching dudes out, and throwing out pithy one-liners. What was an actual character for 3 movies has been reduced to an action-figure caricature. The reason it bothers me is it's a really lazy way of trying to seem gender progressive, without actually writing good roles for women. It lets Hollywood have its cake and eat it, and nothing actually changes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 08:40
|
|
|
Must admit I was only compelled to watch the scene when I heard internet superhero Joss Whedon called it sexist. The scene isn't great but that doesn't mean people aren't reading the film wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 12:44
|
|
|
I still haven't watched the scene but Joss Whedon is wrong. It could be a bad scene, but Whedon is wrong about why.
VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Apr 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:To start things off, there are two temptations to be avoided: I see. This is an interesting point but it sounds like you went off on a bizarre tangent about nothing pertaining to sexism. Corek posted:I think it's funny that when the scene was first brought up in this thread nobody really liked it, but I post a tweet Joss Whedon doesn't like it, hoo boy, that's when it becomes important to defend! Who's defending it? I'm defending Whedon's point about it being sexist. Which is kind of is if you're looking at it with no context and even then, I doubt with context it'll be any better. It's a stupid stupid scene that establishes Pratt as a sexual tyrannosaurus alpha male on the prowl with an uppity stiff young woman. Also, he actually regrets making Alien: Resurrection, so there is that. Deakul fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Apr 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Deakul posted:I see. It's a perfectly legitimate point that is made about Joss Whedon's "liberal" sensibilities about The Other. Which his sexist/fetishistic views on women definitely fall under. Yeah and the quotes they pick, he's blaming the producers and casting, for "ruining" his "twists". VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Apr 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
Corek posted:I think it's funny that when the scene was first brought up in this thread nobody really liked it, but I post a tweet Joss Whedon doesn't like it, hoo boy, that's when it becomes important to defend! Oh trust me no one is defending it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
ruby idiot railed posted:It's a perfectly legitimate point that is made about Joss Whedon's "liberal" sensibilities about The Other. Which his sexist/fetishistic views on women definitely fall under. Guess I'm not smart enough to see the point in it, I'm going by the messages I get from his shows. I think this might fit better in a thread actually about Whedon or done via PM, feels like we're cluttering up the JW thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
Holy poo poo talk about dinosaurs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
They're called Velociraptors because they're fast.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
dinosaurs look cool with feathers
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Wanna see a brontosaurus in this movie. Or a tie-in with Land Before Time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Happy Noodle Boy posted:Wanna see a brontosaurus in this movie. Or a tie-in with Land Before Time. BRONTOSAURS DONT EXIST oh wait they do? Ok nevermind carry on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Brontosaurus isn't a planet any more apparently, liberals are trying to take over space.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Brontosaurus isn't a planet any more apparently, liberals are trying to take over space. Petition to rename Pluto to Brontosaurus when it's reinstated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Deakul posted:This is an interesting point but it sounds like you went off on a bizarre tangent about nothing pertaining to sexism. It has everything to do with dinosaurs, and sexism. Fundamentally, Jurassic World is about people who saw the first Jurassic Park and missed the point completely. "Life will find a way, so why don't we let life find a way in this state-of-the-art Innovation Center brought to you by Samsung?" Pratt's character is working to ensure the smooth functioning of the park systems according to the latest management styles, and Chastain's talk about 'assets' is ridiculously gauche and outdated. Look at her suit! She should be wearing flip-flops, or a turtleneck. In other words, Pratt's point of view is hegemonic. His 'relationship' is a more sophisticated, almost invisible, system of control that goes well beyond what Chastain is attempting. Chastain is the dorky outsider who threatens the harmony and balance of the corporate park. This is indistinguishable from what Whedon was saying with the zombies: we need to have a relationship with the poors, lest they 'chimp out' and become intolerable. Note how domesticated the raptors in Pratt's crew are, while the original 'wild' raptors have likely all been killed. They're decaffeinated velociraptors, and that's tolerance in a nutshell. Save the cute animals, who behave acceptably. So: if Pratt's character and Joss Whedon have the same politics, what is the disagreement? Simply, it's that Pratt is treating this specific woman inappropriately in a way that reveals the underlying sexism of Whedon's liberal position. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Apr 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
ruby idiot railed posted:It's a perfectly legitimate point that is made about Joss Whedon's "liberal" sensibilities about The Other. Which his sexist/fetishistic views on women definitely fall under. Deakul posted:dinosaurs look cool with feathers
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Clevermuldoon posted:I always read Grant's arc as that over the course of the movie and dealing with Lex and Tim he finally starts to appreciate kids and is ready to start a family with Dr. Sattler. That's what this scene at the end is implying. Basically. I guess it technically doesn't really matter if Grant and Sattler are together together or not, but the point of Grant's arc is that he went from someone who wasn't going to reproduce to someone who was going to, same as the dinosaurs. Life finds a way and all that. Of course JP3 didn't really follow through with this when it brought back Grant years later and showed him still childless and alone. But that's franchise-driven sequels for you. Xenomrph posted:gently caress no they don't, and I'm really glad Jurassic World isn't going that route.  If it isn't your fondest dream to see this up on the silver screen....I just don't know what to say. Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Apr 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:It has everything to do with dinosaurs, and sexism. Jessica Chastain isn't in the movie. That's Bryce Dallas Howard. Talk about "sexism"!
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:It has everything to do with dinosaurs, and sexism. But what's wrong with decaffeinating godless killing machines, or pretending prostitution has no underlying issues? Surely this is just good old apolitical appreciation of the power of free markets?!
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:But what's wrong with decaffeinating godless killing machines, or pretending prostitution has no underlying issues? Surely this is just good old apolitical appreciation of the power of free markets?! But wasn't Dollhouse all about the underlying issues with prostitution? Over the course of the show it becomes increasingly clear that the non-exploitative nature of the Dollhouse is just a superficial facade and everyone in it is being brutally dehumanized. It's entirely possible that the squeaky-clean nature of the Companions thing in Firefly was being set up to be subverted later. It's just that the show was cancelled before it even really had one narratively complete season.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:But wasn't Dollhouse all about the underlying issues with prostitution? Over the course of the show it becomes increasingly clear that the non-exploitative nature of the Dollhouse is just a superficial facade and everyone in it is being brutally dehumanized. I only saw the first season of Dollhouse but that season wasn't specifically about how it's all subtly hosed but rather about how it's a pretty decent idea that everyone can benefit from that just keeps getting messed up by clients who have ulterior motives, or people within the company being slightly crooked and ruining it's good name, or one of the old members going totally wacko and ranting about Nietzsche while trying to do something vague. The show doesn't say 'Dollhouse shouldn't exist' but rather 'Dollhouse is a great idea that people keep spoiling!' The madam of the dollhouse is presented as genuinely kind of caring for her people and trying to do right by them, turning down upgrades she views as unethical etc - the show sides with the Dollhouse in the same way Avengers sides with Shield. They are the bad guys maybe, but they're 'our side'. If he'd fleshed out (pun intended) the Companions, my guess is there would have been some corruption in there, maybe unlicensed companioning ruining the trade, and in an episode they fix it and the Companions go back to work. Hbomberguy fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Apr 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:But what's wrong with decaffeinating godless killing machines, or pretending prostitution has no underlying issues? Surely this is just good old apolitical appreciation of the power of free markets?! Craven cowardice: the word "apolitical" and the people who use it to describe themselves. I respect the average Grand Wizard more than the 'apolitical'. Hbomberguy posted:I'm sure Joss Whedon was secretly planning on having something to say at some point, sure. Which is why the Firefly comics are so good, right?! Right?! Also how the bitcoin ecosystem is completely top to bottom scammers and failures. Or how MS13 runs half the strip clubs downtown. VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Apr 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
I'm ok with dinos being giant turkeys.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
It's about ethics in dinosaur cinema.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:I'm sure Joss Whedon was secretly planning on having something to say at some point, sure. Which is why the Firefly comics are so good, right?! Right?! I haven't read any Firefly comics, and I thought the show was mediocre at best. As for Dollhouse, I'm just not seeing it. The lady running the Dollhouse isn't really crooked at all and genuinely believes that the Dollhouse is a great idea that other people keep spoiling--and even she ends up doing evil poo poo because of the very nature of her position, realizes it, and ends up deciding to ally with the dolls to destroy the entire system. I can't think of a single character in the show who doesn't come out of the Dollhouse more hosed up than when they came in. If the show was trying to say that the Dollhouse was actually a great idea, shouldn't there have been at least one counter-example to show that? But this is probably the wrong thread for this discussion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Yeah it probably is. I'll just conclude by sentencing Joss Whedon to five years in the re-education camps for Avengers and let everyone get on with debating whether or not Plutos have feathers. I might be misreading Dollhouse since I saw it ages ago and it sucked.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
The way people are abused and treated as a commodity literally leads to the downfall of civilization because the technology is so destructive and the people willing to use it so morally corrupt.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:The way people are abused and treated as a commodity literally leads to the downfall of civilization because the technology is so destructive and the people willing to use it so morally corrupt. The downfall is presented as very zombie-esqe, though, which leads back to the original problem. The issue's not with the powerful/rich people we know, it's with the Other Guys that will misuse the technology.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Whedon is just the kind of average dude who thinks it's clever to call Prometheus "Promeaningless" while simultaneously bemoaning that his crappy Alien movie was everyone else's fault. I wouldn't get too worked up over him. (Prometheus, as it happens, uses a ton of Jurassic Park references 100% correctly - and it's radically feminist.) But the real point of comparison with Jurassic World would be Elysium. Elysium is precisely what this Jurassic World is - this utopian Disneyland where everything is perfect - so the fundamental question is "what's the catch?" Who made all this stuff? Where are the action figures and hats manufactured? What do they do with the garbage?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:(Prometheus, as it happens, uses a ton of Jurassic Park references 100% correctly - and it's radically feminist.) As opposed to Alien: Resurrection, which also significantly references Jurassic Park, but squanders the possibility of telling the story of an intrepid young woman who finds out that a feminist icon has been genetically re-engineered by a faceless corporation to be part rape-monster.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Inara is a prostitute, but she is intelligent, kind, a nice person yadda yadda, and several episodes revolve around her defying 'traditional expectations' of her role, but around the edges the problem starts to appear. It's all sanitised, clients are all super rich and the Companions choose their own clients, there's a support network, it's all a classy affair for the people at the top. It's classist and supports liberal values, a well-regulated free market and so on, 'cleaning up' the world's oldest profession by making it all shiny. As much as I dislike Whedon's other work, Firefly is entirely about people who know the world they live in is fundamentally hosed up but who are tempted to give up on ever trying to change it for the better. Neither it nor Dollhouse are presenting their settings as ideals, or good ideas ruined by a few bad eggs. Not at all. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Apr 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
Deakul posted:I think this might fit better in a thread actually about Whedon or done via PM, feels like we're cluttering up the JW thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 09:04
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Hell no, that looks dumb as heck. Dinosaurs as depicted in the original JP will always be the definitive dinosaurs in my mind. Yeah but you like Aliens vs Predator comics and toys and books and all that poo poo
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 09:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 13:49 |
|
|
Jonah Galtberg posted:Yeah but you like Aliens vs Predator comics and toys and books and all that poo poo  I guess you could argue that dinosaurs in Jurassic World should have dumbass feathers but we already know they don't so I guess it's a moot point (and a drat good thing, to boot).
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 10:10
|
|