|
Maxwell Lord posted:Ooh, a sarcasm detector! That's a REAL useful invention! Thank you! PaganGoatPants posted:I just saw Elysium and I think SMG would like that one. I saw it too, and it rules. Elysium obviously has very similar themes to Pacific Rim, but way less issues.
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 09:02 |
|
|
Peruser posted:Which was? brawleh posted:When SMG talked about respecting the opinion of Jefferoo for posting in the manner he did, it's good that any form of art should evoke a strong emotional reaction and it was present(in spirit anyway) when arguing whether or not a synthetic or created life form is any less alive(for reference sake from my childhood, ST:TNG The Measure of a Man, which colours my perception of the Kaiju as a Race). Why talking about how well the movie is doing financially isn't that good(I know you want it to be successful, so GDT can make more of them and so on) but you are, in a sense, engaging in a line of argument or reasoning that means any art only has value if you see some form of direct financial returns on an investment(another example about how we engage or define value in art and the importance of how we define value, in this case meta critic scores, Obsidian Entertainment and the New Vegas Royalties fiasco due to those meta critic scores). Sorry for the double quote post, it's been touched upon earlier and easily enough missed. This for me is at the heart of that point/post, not trying to put words into anyone's mouth, it's more how I see it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
Binary Badger posted:The look on Mako's face in the 1st panel is perfect; it matches the look she had on her face for most of the movie. This is so, so wonderful 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
brawleh posted:Sorry for the double quote post, it's been touched upon earlier and easily enough missed. This for me is at the heart of that point/post, not trying to put words into anyone's mouth, it's more how I see it. SMG's sarcastic jab at box-office-watchers does not directly reference your lovely pet argument, which merely strawmans curiosity in a movie's financial success as making artistic value judgements based on financial success. It is not valid to conflate anyone's very grounded-in-the-real-world association between financial success and chance of sequels with anyone making the argument that "more money = more artistic value". It is, however, sour grapes directed at people who are not interested in engaging with the movie in the same way as you in this thread (as was SMG's sarcasmpost).
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
I just remember a few years back where they showed test footage for TRON 2 aka TR2N aka TRON: LEGACY, and many real-world people were like HOLY loving CHRIST IT'S TRON. And I mean breathless anticipation - people spending dozens of hours on the TRON ARG, buying hundreds or even thousands of dollars in TRON merch before the film was even out, fan-art, etc. So I asked what I felt was a simple question: what is Tron? What is Tron about? It wasn't rhetorical; I hadn't seen either of the films or played the videogame(s?). But no-one was willing or able to explain what Tron was. Like, not a fraction of the enthusiasm was put in that direction - and I'm talking more devotion to Tron than most people have towards God. So I did some research, and it turns out Tron is a rather generic Disney franchise about intellectual property that got 'meta' in the second installment, with the protagonist owning Tron action figures and the composers playing the Tron 2 soundtrack 'live' in the diegesis, etc. It was fairly underwhelming. But it was a moot point anyways, because, once the film was out, fans quickly shifted their enthusiasm to hoping that the mediocre and underperforming film would recoup enough losses on the DVD market to prompt the development of TRON 3 aka TR3N aka HOLY loving CHRIST, MORE TRON. So, I guess, similar situation here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
People underestimate how good it can be to have some good music go along with good effects. I'll forgive a lot of plot holes for some badass scenes that will remain in my memory hours/days/weeks later. Tron Legacy is a good example of that as is Pacific Rim. Light on plot, but a visual feast in many ways.
OldPueblo fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Aug 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
Paolomania posted:SMG's sarcastic jab at box-office-watchers does not directly reference your lovely pet argument, which merely strawmans curiosity in a movie's financial success as making artistic value judgements based on financial success. It is not valid to conflate anyone's very grounded-in-the-real-world association between financial success and chance of sequels with anyone making the argument that "more money = more artistic value". It is, however, sour grapes directed at people who are not interested in engaging with the movie in the same way as you in this thread (as was SMG's sarcasmpost). That's fair, it's a pet argument of mine and I'm not trying to speak for anyone, However I don't see it as a straw man argument regarding the curiosity of a movies financial success. There's an element culturally, where people are looking for the (summer)big block buster failure(there's more than a hint that Pacific Rim was/is being painted as such). In my mind how entertaining that curiosity about a movie can actually be detrimental to the movie(not to be unaware of it, but to give it too much credence can warp things). I mean this argument is basically the same one (now this general perception/observation is a bit of straw man but I can't think of a better way to illustrate the point within a cultural context), how Hollywood accountants will always think movies make a loss, jokingly people talked about Avatar in this light. How we talk about movies can actually influence their success or our idea what's supposedly a successful movie and I don't find that irrelevant. For a few examples of movies where this line of argument I'm referring to ended up hurting them, not discounting other factors and I may be remembering wrong or unaware of(at least personally). There's Dredd(bad marketing, lack of distance from the first attempt), Battleships(sold as a big summer action movie based upon toys, maybe suffered from audience fatigue of Transformers) and John Carter(again confused marketing where some general opinions of it defined it as a derivative of Star Wars without heart which is damming it to prequel movie status for many) what they all have in common is the discussion that sprung up around them. There was a small segment on the BBC news(prime time, also on the radio) talking about how big a flop John Carter was and it had only been out for a short time in the UK, it didn't stick around long either because no one wants to carrying a product they think's not going to sell. Maybe line of argument is a poor choice of words, rather you're letting the discussion be set for you in such a way that's detrimental to your own personal experience with the movie and this can actually negatively impact the movies themselves. It can create a warped idea of a successful movie but only if it makes money back directly as an investment(emphasis on that opening weekend in an often loaded the summer season, slow burn through word of mouth being an exception to the rule). Dredd for instance has good word of mouth and might get another chance at life, this is in spite of wanting to know box office draws, people know it didn't(wasn't) do(ing) well what's great is how those who enjoyed it reacted by basically saying "just watch this, it's really good(because reasons)". Like I tried to say earlier, there's even a textual element to Pacific Rim about the dangers of commodifying something as a product to sell, wanting more of it and how that might be leading to something destructive(there's also a long running joke about the quality of most sequels in the eyes of fans when compared to the original, Scream 2 referenced this joke). I sympathise with the intent, went to Pacific Rim as someone who enjoys GDT's work. When Ferrinus used the word pretend, while I don't wholly agree with it's use, I get why he used that word. The only person to try and define why Pacific Rim was fun, as a personal experience(sorry if I'm ignoring anyone else, Jeferroo just sticks out), when enjoying the rocket punches was Jefferoo, hell someone just said it was fun but they didn't enjoy it(do we need fun to enjoy something? or how do we quantify fun). For the same reason Jefferoo found it fun some of us didn't, or at least what we were to have found fun didn't provoke the same reaction. SMG's post read as an ironic response for me(Yes this doesn't change the nature of the provocation, my genuine thanks to ImpAtom on that) to the similar posts aimed at those of us discussing/unpacking aspects we found worth discussing. I find them funny, lets me laugh at myself due to these wordy posts otherwise I'd be too self-concious to post'em. So sorry for the wordy post(likely loaded with errors) for those that hate them, SMG can do much more with far fewer words. brawleh fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Aug 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I just remember a few years back where they showed test footage for TRON 2 aka TR2N aka TRON: LEGACY, and many real-world people were like HOLY loving CHRIST IT'S TRON. And I mean breathless anticipation - people spending dozens of hours on the TRON ARG, buying hundreds or even thousands of dollars in TRON merch before the film was even out, fan-art, etc. Basically, people enjoyed a movie that you didn't like because they don't look for the same things in a movie you do, then when they decided they might like another after having seen the movie, you got all salty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
To me there's the element that whether or not there are any sequels, this film's performance could have some impact on the eternal uphill battle to get Hollywood to spend money on things that aren't pre-existing properties. You can get a low-budget movie made with an original script, or even a middle-expensive one, but there is that restriction that if you want to make some giant epic, you need something that's "presold" to the public. It's not an absolute thing, since this did get made and so did Inception, Super 8 (though that was a mid-budget film by modern standards), etc. And of course not all movies need huge budgets, etc. The problem is that when any movie loses a lot of money for a studio, it puts the fear of God into studio executives and even if there's one identifiable cause for a flop (bad promotion, horrible word of mouth, etc.), the nervous nature of movie executives leads them to pin it on anything it was associated with. It's a common phenomenon, it's "This looks too much like a Western", "No, it can't be period, it has to be modern dress!", etc. Speed Racer should have been a wake-up call that big action movies don't have to be gritty and monochromatic but look how that worked out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:So I asked what I felt was a simple question: what is Tron? What is Tron about? Tron is "hey, the relationship between programmers and programs is like God and humans, isn't that neat" Tron 2 is "forget the first movie, intelligent design sucks, evolution is everything" Not exactly deep, but there's something there. The stuff about intellectual property is so uninteresting that the movie just forgets about it for most of its runtime while Flynn gets caught up in helping the masses against the false god, and then just barely remembers to deal with it in the last 2 minutes as an afterthought Steve Yun fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Aug 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
quote:It was fairly underwhelming. I thought it was a pretty good music video.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I just remember a few years back where they showed test footage for TRON 2 aka TR2N aka TRON: LEGACY, and many real-world people were like HOLY loving CHRIST IT'S TRON. And I mean breathless anticipation - people spending dozens of hours on the TRON ARG, buying hundreds or even thousands of dollars in TRON merch before the film was even out, fan-art, etc. So why does this happen, why is the hype becoming almost as important for the fans as the actual product? The same thing has been going on in the music business a lot lately, with a shining example being the release of Daft Punk's latest album. Months prior to it's release it was already seen as the defining album of the year and a lot of people expected, loudly and earnestly, that it would single-handedly come to reshape the electronic scene somehow. And then the album dropped and that was it, it was mostly forgotten in a matter of weeks. I mean, a lot of people will probably find that they enjoyed the album more when it wasn't actually released yet, when it was just a concept to lust after. MIDWIFE CRISIS fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Aug 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:It might seem like a bad movie, but the Pacific Rim fandom (known affectionately as 'Rimmers') have been pointing out its most fascinating details. I'm sorry nobody wants to play with you any more, but continuing to attempt to demonstrate to your satisfaction the existence of an interpretation at least as valid as but contradictory to your own is apparently less interesting than show business.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
I liked Pacific Rim and I hadn't taken part in any ARGs or hype or whatever. Argument destroyed, I guess? I don't know what's wrong with fan art, either. It's cool to see people appreciate something (exceptions made of course for weird fetishy stuff). I'll agree with the point that people get outrageously hyped for things that aren't out yet or, in some cases, may never be released. For an example, look at the Star Citizen thread in Games. People are earnestly and eagerly discussing their space alliances and ship crews and organizational minutiae in a game that might never be released, will surely be different to its original conception, and is just going to end up with a lot of very disappointed gamers. It's pretty intriguing to look at.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
Posting about hype for future things is how people have fun with them before they exist. After they exist there's less need for such posting, because the thing itself is right there. It drops off sooner with movies and albums compared to games, of course, as it's far easier to see the many different ways of approaching some games.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 00:59
|
|
|
Wait, people need to be explained why some create fan art or keep track of box office in the hopes that a sequel is made? Have these people never engaged with a piece of pop culture before?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
Mmm, that's simply because you're too much of a materialistic plebian to understand, why don't you go play with your toys while the ADULTS discuss how Pacific Rim is a fascist manifestation of the commercialism that's killing American culture and the philosophy of Zizek in relation to giant robots.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 01:57
|
|
|
Superstring posted:Wait, people need to be explained why some create fan art or keep track of box office in the hopes that a sequel is made? Have these people never engaged with a piece of pop culture before? I do wonder why it's seemingly to the exclusion of all things besides 'good effects' and 'friendship', yes. I mean, the thread is like 200+ pages at this point. I joke about the fan-art but it's comparatively, refreshingly, expressive! I could go on about how the blank killbots and protagonists are conducive to infantilization and/or sexualization. (Though obviously 'adults', people have already pointed out how they behave as twelve-year-olds, so they come across as these sort of proto-human templates that you can modify to your liking.) But it's the movie thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 02:45
|
|
|
Raserys posted:Mmm, that's simply because you're too much of a materialistic plebian to understand, why don't you go play with your toys while the ADULTS discuss how Pacific Rim is a fascist manifestation of the commercialism that's killing American culture and the philosophy of Zizek in relation to giant robots. I would if these jerks would release the Cherno Alpha toy already.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 02:49
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:I would if these jerks would release the Cherno Alpha toy already. Doesnt look like we'll get Otachi soon either. Im preparing my noose.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I do wonder why it's seemingly to the exclusion of all things besides 'good effects' and 'friendship', yes. I mean, the thread is like 200+ pages at this point. What exclusion? We've hashed over the sociopolitical interpretations of this film for a good portion of that 200 pages, we've had thematic discussion up to the gills. We have had the heavy talk. We can also talk about the small stuff. This thread is large, it contains multitudes. It has been played out. We have all made our points, those of us who want to and care enough to. It was rewarding, but you can't blame people or look down on them for bowing out of the heavy ideological discussion. I know to you there's no element of moral judgment or approbation to the "fascism" thing but you can at least understand how people take it that way and it makes the discussion heated. Those of us who really liked the movie- on whatever level we happen to appreciate it- like to examine the various fun little things that have sprung up in its wake. And we would like to see more movies like it, hence box office is a matter of interest. I just don't understand what you're trying to say with posts like that. Are you disappointed that we're not just going to talk about whether the film is fascist or not for another month? It just strikes me as really passive aggressive. "Oh, no, it's GREAT that you're engaging with all these cardboard characters and talking about box office and not about the film's inherent xenophobia." There is room for many levels of discussion in this thread. If we don't all care to follow your line anymore that's because it's kind of exhausting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 05:16
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:I would if these jerks would release the Cherno Alpha toy already. Speaking of Cherno Alpha, I bet you can't guess which Jaeger is Japan's favorite(aside from Gipsy Danger, who has the unfair advantage of being the main mech, of course).  I've just grabbed a sizable collection of non-mecha-musume(basically, anthropomorphised robots as anime girls) Pacific Rim fanart off of Pixiv.net in one gigantic Imgur album. It's all stuff I thought was either straight up high quality, good sketches, amusing, or a good tribute to something. And it warms my heart that there is more than one Gunbuster  -pose Gipsy Danger picture already.http://imgur.com/a/GY0LL Some sample images!     WHO'S THAT ABOMINATION?!  IT'S PIKAIJU!!
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 05:32
|
|
|
Captain Invictus posted:Some sample images! This is so great. Poor lil' helicopters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 06:16
|
|
|
You know, every time I see an awesome piece of Cherno Alpha fan art I become increasingly depressed that it was the second to kick the bucket. At the same time my hopes for an animated prequel series chronicling the height of the Kaiju Wars go up. Also, is there no Tacit Ronin fan art? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 06:34
|
|
|
I did not see a single piece of Tacit Ronin fanart in like 1400 images. Kinda sucks! A few interesting original designs though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 06:40
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:What exclusion? We've hashed over the sociopolitical interpretations of this film for a good portion of that 200 pages, we've had thematic discussion up to the gills. We have had the heavy talk. We can also talk about the small stuff. This thread is large, it contains multitudes. Actually, I totally blame and look down on them! I'm scoffing hard at the Whitman misquote/paraphrase. 'Levels of discussion' is a fake idea. You're not bypassing ideology by talking about the box-office grosses, or creating an erotic and/or "chibi" image of an authoritarian-capitalist deathbot because it 'looks kinda (ironically) soviet', or endlessly complaining about my rad & accurate posting. It's not 'just' your opinion. Don't devalue it with this nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 06:42
|
|
|
Open your eyes, sheeple! By posting about the profitability of a motion picture, you've actually been talking about capitalism!
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 06:56
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Actually, I totally blame and look down on them! I'm scoffing hard at the Whitman misquote/paraphrase. But this is not the "Pacific Rim: Ideology" thread- it's the Pacific Rim thread, full stop. There's no reason we should have to limit discussion to direct engagement with your interpretation of the movie's subtext. That can only ever be one of many lines of discussion in a thread as active as this one. It is one thing to say that everything has a political element, it is another to say that the political elements are the only things worth dealing with. I would say that they are not even the only elements worth dealing with on an intellectual plane- I'm far more interested with the film's engagement with the tokusatsu and sentai genres (and the cultural outlooks reflected therein) than where it falls on the fascist/communist axis. I dare say this forum has been to that well too many times. It's played out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 06:59
|
|
|
I am, personally, not preventing you from writing something interesting about toys, "the film's engagement with the tokusatsu and sentai genres (and the cultural outlooks reflected therein)," or anything else. I am actually interested in those things, and in seeing people reach their full potential. So: what is Pacific Rim? What is Pacific Rim 'about'?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 08:37
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I am, personally, not preventing you from writing something interesting about toys, "the film's engagement with the tokusatsu and sentai genres (and the cultural outlooks reflected therein)," or anything else. I am actually interested in those things, and in seeing people reach their full potential. Existential robot farts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 08:44
|
|
|
A huge, wet and gaping hole that our protagonists need to ram hard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 09:06
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I am, personally, not preventing you from writing something interesting about toys, "the film's engagement with the tokusatsu and sentai genres (and the cultural outlooks reflected therein)," or anything else. I am actually interested in those things, and in seeing people reach their full potential. No poo poo, you aren't capable of stopping anyone from posting anything. But when the topic is not about taking a movie and shoving it up its own rear end you make long, passive-aggressive posts like this one here. "I'm not stopping anyone from writing anything INTERESTING. Buy please, keep the conversation defined in the terms I have decided are valid, and not in these imaginary levels of discussion." If the conversation isn't in a direction you fancy, have you considered trying to find a conversation on something else?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 09:52
|
|
|
Oh my God the silliest slapfight. "Engaging with the film and talking about its meaning is worthwhile, but talking about toys and profit is dumb and boring." "My feelings! Instead of ignoring you and posting about what I want even if you don't like it, I will mount a defense of my opinions on this internet forum!" I would also like to hear more about the tokusatsu and sentai thing, I read back a fair way in this thread but I didn't see any in-depth explanation or discussion of it. (P.S. thanks to the person who recommended some books to me, almost finished Lost Christianities and it was really good)
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 10:07
|
|
|
Well this is interesting. I'm sure you'll all aware of the Bechdel test. I'm sure you're also aware that Pacific Rim does not pass this test. But it seems it might spur a new test for if a film is Feminist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 10:21
|
|
|
What the heck, it's better than talking about how many Mussolinis can dance on the head of a kaiju. Still, it seems to be inflating the issue. The Bechdel Test is a provocative and illuminating thought experiment, but it's not very useful as a test per se because its result doesn't mean much about a single film. Its existence is a statement about antifeminist tendencies in media at large, but it's well-known that passing it doesn't indicate the presence of feminism nor does failing it indicate its absence. Many people have noticed that Pacific Rim's extreme gender imbalance in no way diminishes the significance of the character of Mako Mori (I disagree with the idea, which I believe was discussed earlier in this thread, that her is characterized by a desire to be "one of the guys" - her motivation is revenge, and she does not compromise her femininity, or anything else about her, to get it), and they're not wrong to conclude that the Bechdel Test is insufficient as a way to examine the matter. Where they go wrong is by concluding that another, equally superficial checklist is the answer. The goal is to get people to think about the things they watch, and a simplistic "test" is the opposite of that. It's fortuitous that the Bechdel Test is a misnomer, because it succeeded in provoking critical thought as much as it failed and continues to fail as a means of categorizing media based on some imagined objective quantity of progressiveness. The new test described in the article reveals the same problem as the existing one, but it reveals it by the measurement of a far less obvious feature, which makes it either redundant or inferior. More to the point, it was born out of a deep misunderstanding of the nature of criticism. It aks the reader to analyze the development of a character, but tells them to stop as soon as they've seen enough to slot it in the "feminist" or "not feminist" category. That is some TV Tropes grade bullshit there - trying to fit the subjective experience of watching a film into a facile and admittedly insufficient taxonomy. Absolutely it's significant that the one can walk away with a very strong and valid feminist interpretation of a film that fails the Bechdel Test. What should be done, then, is to try to explain and and expand upon that interpretation, and let it live as part of the broader conversation about the film or feminism. Reducing it interpretation to three simple clauses kills it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 11:22
|
|
|
I'm fond of the rationale behind that "new" test, but I don't think I would ever attempt to to use it at the exclusion of Bechdel, much like I would never use Bechdel to take the place of more thorough analyses. Mako is a strong character and the film is still a gratuitously imbalanced sausagefest. And in regards to the "racial Bechdel test" the article mentioned, it's true that two characters of color do in fact talk about something other than white people, but the film is still strongly skewed white. These things aren't mutually exclusive, which is what makes representation such a loaded discussion, and particularly for this film. On a slightly different note, I was thinking about the initial comparisons between this film and Evangelion way back whenever, and I realized that the reason I like this film and hate Evangelion is because Evangelion says emotions are lovely and gently caress everything up while Pacific Rim says connection between human beings can literally save the world. Both use human emotions to drive monster-fighting robots but go about it in completely, diametrically-opposed ways.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 11:39
|
|
|
Prism Mirror Lens posted:Oh my God the silliest slapfight. I agree with this post, ignore SMG.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 12:02
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:The new test described in the article reveals the same problem as the existing one, but it reveals it by the measurement of a far less obvious feature, which makes it either redundant or inferior. More to the point, it was born out of a deep misunderstanding of the nature of criticism. It aks the reader to analyze the development of a character, but tells them to stop as soon as they've seen enough to slot it in the "feminist" or "not feminist" category. That is some TV Tropes grade bullshit there - trying to fit the subjective experience of watching a film into a facile and admittedly insufficient taxonomy. I disagree. The proposer of the test points out that it is not a test of how feminist the film is and that passing the test does not equal a feminist film. quote:The Mako Mori test is passed if the movie has: a) at least one female character; b) who gets her own narrative arc; c) that is not about supporting a man’s story. I think this is about as indicative of “feminism” (that is, minimally indicative, a pretty low bar) as the Bechdel test. It is a pretty basic test for the representation of women, as is the Bechdel test. It does not make a movie automatically feminist. I think they have understood slightly better than most people what the Bechdel test is and means, i.e. that it's more meaningful that most films fail it than that one particular film passes it, and that both tests require absolute minimums, not pinnacles of feminism. It is also not criticism and I think she recognises that. The new test is even an attempt to get around the problems that you point out, in that "having her own narrative arc" that is "not about supporting a man's story" are factors which can be less objectively judged than "do two women talk to each other about something besides men" - a test which leads to people behaving if sexism is eradicated by two women having a brief conversation, without looking beyond that shallow, factual level. Here one does have to analyse the narrative and characters before making a judgement on whether the female character fulfils the criteria. From their full Tumblr post: quote:...the Bechdel test was never intended to be a test “for feminism,” it was a test initially created by a lesbian in the context of a comic about lesbians, and thus shorthand for determining whether a movie might reflect any hint of a community centered around women... Some questions about the other parts of your post: do you think Mako is a weaker or less feminist character because she appeared willing to compromise something about herself - give up on her ambition of being a jaeger pilot - because Stacker forbids her? What would 'compromising her femininity' entail, and what in the film indicates that she is deliberately not compromising her femininity, i.e. how does she display/perform femininity as a character and how does that make her a stronger character?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 12:15
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:So: what is Pacific Rim? What is Pacific Rim 'about'? Fascism, remember?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 12:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 09:02 |
|
|
So, after this thread you're all going to stop qualifying your reactions to SMG's terrible posts with phrases like "I respect your opinion, but" "I'm probably just not smart enough to understand what you're saying, but" "I really appreciate the amount of thought you've put into this post, but" and "come on, you're better than this." Right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 13:13
|
|
