Hm, I tend to see it from a different perspective. There are a lot of movies that just repeat what has been done before: James Bond always ends up with a bad guy who explains his evil plan in detail and then sets up an elaborate way to kill him from which he escapes, most of the superhero movies have been done multiple times, there are many different versions of every Jane Austen novel and Grimm fairytale. That is not a unique characteristic of Ocean’s 8 or Ghostbusters, it’s a widespread phenomenon. Repeating something that worked in a slightly different fashion is an easy way to make money. But in their repeating-what-has-been-done, film makers do take into account trends in the outside world. The Grimm fairytale princesses are not as meek as they once were (try watching Disney’s Snow White from 1947 without flinching), superheroes now have weaknesses and human emotions, even James Bond develops some depth in his character in later movies. And sometimes they redo the entire thing but then with a female cast. Yes, because that is a trend and this likely to make money, but probably also because it makes more money than doing another Ocean movie with George Clooney, because people are getting tired of that, they’ve seen it before.
RE: The Altar of Pussy - or when the equal rights movement goes wrong
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The Altar of Pussy - or when the equal rights movement goes wrong
I'm not saying those movies are in anyway better. I've never been a Bond fan precisely because it's predictable and dull, in my opinion. Yes,you have a point, they do it because it works but also because it plays on the divide between men and women.
There is, at some point in this shit movie, an exchange where Bullock says she doesn't want men on her team. Now, I'm only talking in terms of equality here - that's what would make sense, having both men and women.
But it's not, it's either all men or all women. I understand the strategy behind such films and why they work, like I said, why bother coming up with a whole new movie when you can just add a twist? but they play on a much larger issue. Nobody is going to bash this movie for having an all-female cast, because that would be seen as sexist, although the movie itself is sexist and promotes sexism.
I'm all for women's rights, but not when it means taking away from men. and I don't want to live in a world run by kindergarten logic such as girls only play with girls because boys are gross.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This discussion reminds me of the Suit Supply ads we've had in the Netherlands (I don't know if they run them in other countries too, they're quite explicit and NSFW). They're extremely sexist - completely dressed men surrounded by (half)naked women in submissive positions - and my opinion of the company wasn't very positive, to say the least. But then, they also had an ad in which the roles were reversed - completely suited woman and submissive naked man. Still completely sexist, but because it was so completely sexist the other way around it seemed to make sense and send a stronger message, namely that it's OK for women to objectify men as well.
I don't think sexism is bad per se, although it is often seen as such. I think the main problem is that for so long, it's only been used in one direction. And then turning things up side down, by objectifying men instead of women and being sexist the other way around, can be refreshing.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit