Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Pycckuu
Sep 13, 2011

by FactsAreUseless

Neo_Reloaded posted:

That is the character's logic. But the character is not a real person - this is not a documentary, this did not actually happen. So the more interesting issue is why the screenwriter/director/everyone involved created this scenario. That is what the discussion is about.

Because the hero getting the girl at the end is good storytelling, and because rear end sex jokes are raunchy and unexpected in this particular context. The writers are juxtaposing conventional storytelling tropes with modern views on sex and violence.

Quick, someone give me my PhD in Reading Too Much Into Straight Forward Movies Trying to Find Symbolism and Marxist-Leninist Interpretations. :synpa:

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

BottledBodhisvata
Jul 26, 2013

by Lowtax

Neo_Reloaded posted:

That is the character's logic. But the character is not a real person - this is not a documentary, this did not actually happen. So the more interesting issue is why the screenwriter/director/everyone involved created this scenario. That is what the discussion is about.

I suppose they were just being cheeky.

Neo_Reloaded
Feb 27, 2004
Something from Nothing

Pycckuu posted:

Because the hero getting the girl at the end is good storytelling, and because rear end sex jokes are raunchy and unexpected in this particular context. The writers are juxtaposing conventional storytelling tropes with modern views on sex and violence.

Quick, someone give me my PhD in Reading Too Much Into Straight Forward Movies Trying to Find Symbolism and Marxist-Leninist Interpretations. :synpa:

The hero getting the girl at the end is sexist and reinforces the notion of "women as trophies." And the rest of the movie is entirely devoid of sex jokes and raunchiness, yet is thoroughly concerned with spy movie tropes. And the "hero getting the girl" is a regular James Bond trope, with James Bond being the quintessential spy hero. It's almost like they're trying to say something about James Bond and similar movies...

Nah, you're right, that's looking way too much into it. It's a funny sex joke, haha. I like jokes.

Pycckuu
Sep 13, 2011

by FactsAreUseless
Everyone in the movie theater laughed when the lady said "i'll let you gently caress my rear end." The juxtaposition of a gentleman spy movie hero and modern views on sex and violence resulted in comedy. I don't think it can get any more obvious than that.

MisterBibs
Jul 17, 2010

dolla dolla
bill y'all
Fun Shoe

Neo_Reloaded posted:

That is the character's logic. But the character is not a real person - this is not a documentary, this did not actually happen. So the more interesting issue is why the screenwriter/director/everyone involved created this scenario. That is what the discussion is about.

I'm having trouble parsing what you're saying. The character might not be a real person, but the logic of that character's actions made sense for that character. Sure, the lady [spoiler]offering her rear end in exchange for saving the world[/url] isn't entirely realistic, but I think it works in the "Yeah, I can see someone desperately wanting to be saved dangling that carrot to someone".

Martman
Nov 20, 2006

Pycckuu posted:

Everyone in the movie theater laughed when the lady said "i'll let you gently caress my rear end."
Yep, every single person.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010

Pycckuu posted:

Everyone in the movie theater laughed when the lady said "i'll let you gently caress my rear end." The juxtaposition of a gentleman spy movie hero and modern views on sex and violence resulted in comedy. I don't think it can get any more obvious than that.

It was "we can do it in the rear end in a top hat" and I think the unconventional, perhaps even flawed syntax adds something *puffs on a cigar, sips at brandy* you sip at brandy, right? It's a drink.

CrashCat
Jan 10, 2003

another shit post


Jesus gently caress you people are uptight about a campy spy movie. Now I realize why we don't have more enjoyable silly movies like this one

DrVenkman
Dec 28, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.

Neo_Reloaded posted:

The hero getting the girl at the end is sexist and reinforces the notion of "women as trophies." And the rest of the movie is entirely devoid of sex jokes and raunchiness, yet is thoroughly concerned with spy movie tropes. And the "hero getting the girl" is a regular James Bond trope, with James Bond being the quintessential spy hero. It's almost like they're trying to say something about James Bond and similar movies...

Nah, you're right, that's looking way too much into it. It's a funny sex joke, haha. I like jokes.

The difference is that she's the one who ups the ante. He does a little bit of flirting with the old 'Oh I'll free you if you give me a kiss' (and he would've freed her anyway, he's not a dick) line and she's the one that tells him if he saves the world they can do it in the rear end. The dynamic switches because she becomes assertive.

The problem with saying that 'this reinforces that women are trophies' is that it assumes, as in this case, that the woman has no say in it. It's not directed at you, but sometimes it feels like when people make an argument like that then they ignore that a woman can be sexually assertive.

For the record I don't think the rear end shot at the end is needed. It works just as well with Mark Strong reacting to it and is probably funnier that way.

Gyges
Aug 4, 2004

NOW NO ONE
RECOGNIZE HULK

DrVenkman posted:

The difference is that she's the one who ups the ante. He does a little bit of flirting with the old 'Oh I'll free you if you give me a kiss' (and he would've freed her anyway, he's not a dick) line and she's the one that tells him if he saves the world they can do it in the rear end. The dynamic switches because she becomes assertive.

She also counters is playful request for a kiss with an offer of sex. As he's then trying to open the door Merlin realizes that he can' hack the system and tells Eggsy that he has to do something. It's then that Eggsy excuses himself from the princess with the excuse that he has to save the world, which she then offers up anal as a reward for. She's the one upping the ante at every turn, obviously throwing Eggsy slightly off guard each time.

Swedish Princesses just can't resist a Chav in a suit.

meatbag
Apr 2, 2007
Clapping Larry
I really loved the offhanded "It's weird that there is no recognizable name for the Chinese secret services".

DrVenkman
Dec 28, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.
Jackson has a few moments like that. Like after he first kills. "Doesn't it feel great?", "No! It feels loving terrible.". He feels like he's stepped out of the Venture Brothers.

Coffee And Pie
Nov 4, 2010

"Blah-sum"?
More like "Blawesome"
Not sure if anyone mentioned this already, but apparently the lisp was a choice Sam Jackson made:

Matthew Vaughn posted:

Sam explained to me that when he was younger, he had a lisp and a stutter, and it really drove him on to want to be famous, to succeed. He said, ‘Look, trust me, if you were a guy, if you’re Steve Jobs and you’ve got everything -- you’ve got money, you’ve got power, you’ve got everything you want -- but you’ve still got this God drat stutter and lisp, and people aren’t 100% taking you seriously, it can take you to that next level of going mad. And I thought that was great, because … he played this character as someone who had slowly lost the line between, you know, what should happen and shouldn’t happen, which I thought was a great way of doing it.

oneof27
May 27, 2007
DSMtalker
Reading this thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPunyM6eiPo

Olympic Mathlete
Feb 25, 2011

:h:

CrashCat posted:

Jesus gently caress you people are uptight about a campy spy movie. Now I realize why we don't have more enjoyable silly movies like this one

Yeah what the hell? It's like people are trying to put SERIOUS MEANING behind a pretty stupid and fun movie. He saved the world because he was was going to get some bumsex, it's not any less ridiculous than the previous 90 minutes of film you sat through to get to that point...

Maxwell Lord
Dec 12, 2008

I am drowning.
There is no sign of land.
You are coming down with me, hand in unlovable hand.

And I hope you die.

I hope we both die.


:smith:

Grimey Drawer
Honestly that part didn't really bug me. It's a bit jarring because there's been so little sexual material in the rest of the film, though. Bond movies tend to get the implied sex in early and often. Like I said for me, most of the time this felt a bit more like The Avengers, albeit with no Emma Peel.

Neo_Reloaded
Feb 27, 2004
Something from Nothing

DrVenkman posted:

The difference is that she's the one who ups the ante. He does a little bit of flirting with the old 'Oh I'll free you if you give me a kiss' (and he would've freed her anyway, he's not a dick) line and she's the one that tells him if he saves the world they can do it in the rear end. The dynamic switches because she becomes assertive.

The problem with saying that 'this reinforces that women are trophies' is that it assumes, as in this case, that the woman has no say in it. It's not directed at you, but sometimes it feels like when people make an argument like that then they ignore that a woman can be sexually assertive.

I strongly disagree.

If she was a real person, who, of her own initiative, offered the bumsex, then yes, that would say something about her as an individual and her as a woman.

But she is not a real person. She is a fictional character in a movie directed by Matthew Vaughn, based on a comic written by Mark Millar. There is no "she" to decide that she wants to do anything. The script has her initiate the sex because that is more conforming to what men want - the same way most of the women in 007 movies are happy to sleep with James (after the plot-mandated coyness at the beginning), the same way most of the women in porn act like they just can't wait to be hosed. Men fantasize about beautiful women WANTING to sleep with them, they don't fantasize about manipulating or forcing women into sex (for the most part, hopefully). The fictional Swedish princess, a 1-dimensional character with no attributes other than a) opposes mass genocide and b) is up for anal, is not a positive model for assertive female sexuality. Such women, fictional ones even!, can exist, this just sure as hell isn't the way to go about it.

But I don't think Kingsman is truly reinforcing the "women as trophies" trope because it goes so far in that direction that it becomes satire. For those that don't see it as satire, it hits as far past the line of decency, which sparks a discussion. For those that do see it as satire, it is a direct calling out of James Bond, which sparks a discussion. Wow, a film with something to say, how grand!

Jenny Angel
Oct 24, 2010

Out of Control
Hard to Regulate
Anything Goes!
Lipstick Apathy

88h88 posted:

Yeah what the hell? It's like people are trying to put SERIOUS MEANING behind a pretty stupid and fun movie.

I mean, this doesn't have much to do with the specific anal gentleman scene, but I wouldn't act like the two are mutually exclusive. This is a really fun movie that definitely glosses over some serious stuff because it's far from the focal point. But it absolutely wants to have SERIOUS MEANING at points. If it didn't, what the hell are the scenes about Eggsy's class-conscious angst and the lectures about the true meaning of being a gentleman there for? Those are there in the movie. Characters look directly into the camera and talk about social class. A lot.

Which is why it's a little puzzling to me that the sociopolitical criticism in this thread has focused on gender (through Roxy's diminished role towards the end, and our favorite princess) and racial (through whether SLJ is portraying a "scary black man" stereotype") lenses, as opposed to a class lens. Like, I'm never gonna dismiss someone bringing one of those lenses into discussion of a film, but the class stuff is RIGHT THERE. And while the film gets like a million points for trying and I can't really stay mad at it precisely because of those good intentions, it fucks up haaaaard when it comes to class issues. Like, repeatedly.

I suppose we did have that brief discussion on whether businessmen or celebrities are more recognizable avatars of wealth? Yeah, that was alright. This thread, like Kingsman itself, has its heart in the right place and at the end of the day I like it.

Pierson
Oct 31, 2004



College Slice
An incredibky silly movie but that last fight scene was fuckin' baller.

BottledBodhisvata
Jul 26, 2013

by Lowtax

Neo_Reloaded posted:

I strongly disagree.

If she was a real person, who, of her own initiative, offered the bumsex, then yes, that would say something about her as an individual and her as a woman.

But she is not a real person. She is a fictional character in a movie directed by Matthew Vaughn, based on a comic written by Mark Millar. There is no "she" to decide that she wants to do anything. The script has her initiate the sex because that is more conforming to what men want

Hahhahahaha, okay, so you're saying that any woman who willingly has sex with a male character in a fiction written by a man is a sexual fantasy for the benefit solely of men? Positive models of female sexuality, jaysis.

You're so greatly overthinking this it is actually alarming.

Crappy Jack
Nov 21, 2005

We got some serious shit to discuss.

BottledBodhisvata posted:

Hahhahahaha, okay, so you're saying that any woman who willingly has sex with a male character in a fiction written by a man is a sexual fantasy for the benefit solely of men? Positive models of female sexuality, jaysis.

You're so greatly overthinking this it is actually alarming.

That shot of her exposed buttocks was there as an artistic metaphor for the female sexual id and the liberation of womanhood.

Or maybe I'm overthinking that.

Neo_Reloaded
Feb 27, 2004
Something from Nothing

BottledBodhisvata posted:

Hahhahahaha, okay, so you're saying that any woman who willingly has sex with a male character in a fiction written by a man is a sexual fantasy for the benefit solely of men? Positive models of female sexuality, jaysis.

You're so greatly overthinking this it is actually alarming.

You are unfairly removing the context of this discussion. I did not say all women who willingly have sex with a male character in fiction written by men. There are infinite such scenarios that could have worth (be it meaning or entertainment or both) besides pure male titillation, just as there are another infinite such scenarios that are titillation alone.

In terms more honest to what is depicted in the films we're discussing.... a fictional woman who is attractive and readily willing to have sex with the male hero of a film AND offers nothing else in terms of emotional or thematic depth is frequently there only as part of the "escapism" and "thrill" of genre entertainment aimed at men, yes. This is not a radical idea. If Kingsman were playing this straight, if it was not satire, what escapist thrill does a young woman get from the princess scenario? "Gee, I sure wish I was a prisoner in a maniac's secret lair, fearful for my life, with only the offer of anal intercourse as a bargaining chip for my safety!" Whereas, from the male perspective - "Gee, I sure wish I was an unbelievable badass, saving the world and then getting to have anal sex with a beautiful Swedish princess!"

And how does "This is a sex positive representation of the modern woman!" reconcile with the fact that this is a "fun movie"? Having a beautiful woman offer the hero sex is part of the "fun" the same way the action scenes and the jokes are part of the fun. James Bond, Colin Firth, etc. aren't amazing badasses shot in well-choreographed fight scenes because it is important to their characters to look good in fight scenes - their characters' motives are trying to stay alive or some plotty MacGuffin nonsense. The fight scenes are shot to look so cool because it is fun for the audience. The people behind the movie did it for you! The same reason they put beautiful women in sexy clothing and compromising positions - for you!

I'm all for positive models of female sexuality. I'm also fine with sex-for-sex's-sake entertainment aimed at men, because movies can be escapist fun. The only thing I'm truly against is mistaking one for the other.

Neo_Reloaded fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Mar 10, 2015

Pycckuu
Sep 13, 2011

by FactsAreUseless
Guys, this movie discriminates against handicapped people because the villain's henchman is a minority woman who was born without legs. The movie suggest that if you give the handicapped an equal role in society, they will abuse it by killing everyone using sick sword legs and kidnap world leaders for their sinister goals :shrek:

Coming up next: Marxist Leninist reading of Thomas the Tank Engine

CrashCat
Jan 10, 2003

another shit post


I'm not British so I suppose the class thing goes past my head besides the vague "this guy who everyone thought was rubbish turned out to be something" storyline. But there are lots of throwaways in the movie; the guys in the lodge at the start, the assholes in the bar, the church people, the recruits that don't make it, even the goddamn pug gets shelved when it doesn't serve them anymore. Roxy wouldn't even have made it to the final mission if it didn't let them do a crazy spy movie cliche of sending a weird robot chair into space to blow poo poo up. It would be dishonest of me to complain about my favorite thing that got tossed away in service of the goofy plot considering how many other things get casually cast aside in the same drat flick. Everything is chucked in service of a gag, a cliche, or even just an action sequence.

I guess if anything it's a testament to how pretty the movie is in places that people would think there was any attempt being made to be consistent or serious in the drat thing. Maybe if they had slapped Austin Powers in it somewhere people would get the hint.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010
It essentially is an Austin Powers movie, with a better fight choreographer. Also better jokes.

Humbug Scoolbus
Apr 25, 2008

The scarlet letter was her passport into regions where other women dared not tread. Shame, Despair, Solitude! These had been her teachers, stern and wild ones, and they had made her strong, but taught her much amiss.
Clapping Larry

Pycckuu posted:

Guys, this movie discriminates against handicapped people because the villain's henchman is a minority woman who was born without legs. The movie suggest that if you give the handicapped an equal role in society, they will abuse it by killing everyone using sick sword legs and kidnap world leaders for their sinister goals :shrek:

Coming up next: Marxist Leninist reading of Thomas the Tank Engine

Thomas Pynchon the Tank Engine

BottledBodhisvata
Jul 26, 2013

by Lowtax

Neo_Reloaded posted:

I'm all for positive models of female sexuality. I'm also fine with sex-for-sex's-sake entertainment aimed at men, because movies can be escapist fun. The only thing I'm truly against is mistaking one for the other.

I'm not sure it really matters. The fact that any moment a woman's sexuality is thrust into a film seems to require some amount of debate about its intrinsic worth strikes me as nonsensical and arguably sexist. The princess's sexuality is irrelevant to the film's plot, so what she "represents" is purely subjective, and thus not particularly meaningful to the film itself. You can decide that she's either a good or bad sex symbol, but I don't see how it's terribly relevant to the film or a viewing of it. Either you are arguing for argument's sake or you're attempting to make an aspect of the film more important or meaningful than it ever possibly could have been.

Party Boat
Nov 1, 2007

where did that other dog come from

who is he


Pycckuu posted:

Coming up next: Marxist Leninist reading of Thomas the Tank Engine

Thomas the Tank Engine is fiercely pro-capital: one early story featured an engine going on strike and being buried alive as a result. That's the moral.

Neo_Reloaded
Feb 27, 2004
Something from Nothing

BottledBodhisvata posted:

I'm not sure it really matters. The fact that any moment a woman's sexuality is thrust into a film seems to require some amount of debate about its intrinsic worth strikes me as nonsensical and arguably sexist. The princess's sexuality is irrelevant to the film's plot, so what she "represents" is purely subjective, and thus not particularly meaningful to the film itself. You can decide that she's either a good or bad sex symbol, but I don't see how it's terribly relevant to the film or a viewing of it. Either you are arguing for argument's sake or you're attempting to make an aspect of the film more important or meaningful than it ever possibly could have been.

I'm discussing this because things have meanings based on the context they exist in and the context they are viewed in, and it is interesting to discuss those (multiple, subjective, sometimes intended and sometimes accidental) meanings. If you are content with believing something has no meaning (then why is it there?), please don't let me stop you. But this is a thread about Kingsman, and I am discussing the meaning of Kingsman as I read it.

Again: Kingsman is a gentleman spy movie that directly riffs on numerous aspects of James Bond lore. James Bond movies routinely end on a joke about Bond finally sleeping with the Bond Girl of that installment. Kingsman has only one sex joke, it presents a situation remarkably like the James Bond paradigm for spy-and-lady relationships, and it too ends the movie. But no, that is all reading too much into it - it means nothing, it is there because the writers didn't have anything better to put at the end, and you should give it a requisite chuckle and then forget about it forever because it does not mean anything. CINEMA!

Neo_Reloaded fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Mar 10, 2015

Mat Cauthon
Jan 2, 2006

The more tragic things get,
the more I feel like laughing.



I thought this was a great, fun movie. The pinnacle was obviously the church fight sequence, but everything else hit the right notes to an extent that nothing really dragged the movie down. I was shocked at how many kids were in the showing I attended, especially given that last joke. Colin Firth and Liam Neeson should team up to do some "highly respected dramatic actor taking action movie roles" buddy flicks, though.

One thing I didn't get though was, where were the other 9 or 10 Kingsmen at the end? Did Arthur have them all killed or were they all in on the plot or just all dispatched to places where they couldn't help with the final mission?

Jummy
Jun 14, 2007

Oh, my love, my darling.

Neo_Reloaded posted:

Again: Kingsman is a gentleman spy movie that directly riffs on numerous aspects of James Bond lore. James Bond movies routinely end on a joke about Bond finally sleeping with the Bond Girl of that installment. Kingsman has only one sex joke, it presents a situation remarkably like the James Bond paradigm for spy-and-lady relationships, and it too ends the movie. But no, that is all reading too much into it - it means nothing, it is there because the writers didn't have anything better to put at the end, and you should give it a requisite chuckle and then forget about it forever because it does not mean anything. CINEMA!

This is a line of thinking that just delights me. If you don't think this thing has the same meaning as me, then you must think it means nothing.

Unless I'm remembering incorrectly, the only powerful people who don't go along with the rich guy's plan to murder everyone are women. At least the ones they mention in the movie. I thought that was interesting.

Neo_Reloaded
Feb 27, 2004
Something from Nothing

Jummy posted:

This is a line of thinking that just delights me. If you don't think this thing has the same meaning as me, then you must think it means nothing.

I was responding to someone who literally said it was without meaning, that it was irrelevant. You know, like I explained in the paragraph right above the one you quoted, the one you had to delete.

I believe in my reading, and will defend it with the context that led me to that belief - but I'd be more than happy to discuss alternate ideas as well, as long as they aren't "this divisive scene in the movie exists for entirely no reason" or "a princess bartering anal sex for her continued existence is a sex-positive pro-feminism icon for the generation."

quote:

Unless I'm remembering incorrectly, the only powerful people who don't go along with the rich guy's plan to murder everyone are women. At least the ones they mention in the movie. I thought that was interesting.

I agree - definitely worth noting. I also found it both interesting that the villain's henchman was a beautiful woman who was insanely competent and never once reduced to a sex object - neither by her own hand, her evil boss's, or the Kingsmen..

Gyges
Aug 4, 2004

NOW NO ONE
RECOGNIZE HULK

Rap Record Hoarder posted:

One thing I didn't get though was, where were the other 9 or 10 Kingsmen at the end? Did Arthur have them all killed or were they all in on the plot or just all dispatched to places where they couldn't help with the final mission?

Time was an issue, the Kingsmen appear to be a fairly spread out organization, and there was no way to know if they were compromised or not without letting them know you know. So the Kingsmen were forced to MacGuyver a team together of who was there.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010
It's a simple joke. It's always done by implication in Bond movies, or a terrible pun. The joke is that they explicitly state what is going to happen instead of just hinting at it. That's it. An equivalent joke would be someone asking for a favour going
"I'm sure we can work something out."
*pause*
"We could have sex in exchange for this favour, for instance."

Jummy
Jun 14, 2007

Oh, my love, my darling.

Neo_Reloaded posted:

I was responding to someone who literally said it was without meaning, that it was irrelevant. You know, like I explained in the paragraph right above the one you quoted, the one you had to delete.

I believe in my reading, and will defend it with the context that led me to that belief - but I'd be more than happy to discuss alternate ideas as well, as long as they aren't "this divisive scene in the movie exists for entirely no reason" or "a princess bartering anal sex for her continued existence is a sex-positive pro-feminism icon for the generation."

Did they though? The person you quoted did literally say "I'm not sure it really matters." which isn't really the same as saying it has no meaning. I do think it's entirely possible that the entire meaning of the scene was "we think this is funny" which obviously isn't a deep meaning, but it is still something. Or maybe she was just in a ridiculous situation and an attractive dude showed up so she figured why not, let's do it. I also don't think it's anti-feminist to use sex for whatever purpose you want.

quote:

I agree - definitely worth noting. I also found it both interesting that the villain's henchman was a beautiful woman who was insanely competent and never once reduced to a sex object - neither by her own hand, her evil boss's, or the Kingsmen..

This, by the way, is a great point. I didn't think too much about the final fight with her and Eggsey or whatever, but I think it's great that they fight for a little bit, and he's clearly losing, and the only way he wins the fight is through sort of trickery with the poison. So not only is she never a sex object, but she is also obviously a more capable fighter than the hero.

Hollismason
Jun 30, 2007

Witchfinder General

This movie is the most accurate potrayal of Mark Millar comic books that's ever been put to screen.

madeupfred
Oct 10, 2011

by FactsAreUseless

red19fire posted:

Which I think was a great nod to killing off the 1% by the way

How in the hell is that a loving "nod" you idiot they literally kill them, and you watch their heads literally explode.

And then not only do they kill all the 1%ers, they also kill everyone in the White House, and everyone in the UN as well.

They go out of their way to show you that everyone in the White House is dead, including Barack Obama, president of the United States, via head explosion.

madeupfred
Oct 10, 2011

by FactsAreUseless
I couldn't believe it was possible to gently caress up an argument against genocide, but Kingsman has managed to do it.

Doctor Spaceman
Jul 6, 2010

"Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

Hollismason posted:

This movie is the most accurate potrayal of Mark Millar comic books that's ever been put to screen.

The funny thing is that a bunch of massively significant things were changed from the original comic.

E: Notable examples: there's no Land of Hope and Glory scene in the comic, and no princess either.

Doctor Spaceman fucked around with this message at 09:13 on Mar 11, 2015

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

DrVenkman
Dec 28, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.

Neo_Reloaded posted:

I was responding to someone who literally said it was without meaning, that it was irrelevant. You know, like I explained in the paragraph right above the one you quoted, the one you had to delete.

I believe in my reading, and will defend it with the context that led me to that belief - but I'd be more than happy to discuss alternate ideas as well, as long as they aren't "this divisive scene in the movie exists for entirely no reason" or "a princess bartering anal sex for her continued existence is a sex-positive pro-feminism icon for the generation."

And again, as I stated earlier, the roles change because the princess constantly ups the ante and puts Eggsy on the backfoot through the whole exchange. Also interesting that when you throw out your 'written and directed by Matthew Vaughn - a man' screed, it ignores that Jane Goldman also wrote the script and also would've had a hand in that scene. No one is arguing that she's suddenly a pro-feminist icon, merely that she's the one in control of that exchange. It is the same as any Bond ending, I don't think anyone is denying that and you'd have to be dumb not to see it, but it frames the princess as the sexually proactive one, not the bond substitute. It's just an inversion of that scene, which is something the movie does quite a bit throughout.

I don't think you need to rear end shot at the end - and I never thought I'd say that - but that's just me. The scene works just as well with Mark Strong's reaction.

  • Locked thread