What is “feeling defensive” supposed to mean? It seems to me that it’s ascribing motivation without evidence and attacking the poster with vague insinuations of them being a misogynist, rather than addressing the substantive issue, their stated reasons for liking the movie. But of course you really can’t express any useful opinion on their stated reasons, because as I recall you said you haven’t seen the movie?
I have some interest in reviews, I’m not going to spend money on something where there’s broad consensus from people I respect that it’s misogynistic. But all this thread (and the movie thread) have done is compel me to watch this movie as soon as it streams, and at this point I’m going to get decisively off the fence and say that I too have zero interest in ill-informed speculation from people who haven’t seen the fucking movie.
Accusing me of exaggerating and twisting every criticism of this movie is stating that I am intentionally presenting untruths as true. That’s saying I am lying.
Now is that a lie? I personally believe Hanlon’s law likely applies. Or you have some other personal reason to have something up your behind. I can recommend some good laxatives if you need to clear the obstruction?
No, people exaggerate and misinterpret stuff unintentionally all the time. Especially when they are emotionally involved. I did not accuse you of lying. I’m still not accusing you of lying.
I think the operative words there are “hot girls” and “scantily clad”. The rest is superfluous.
Although many of the cosplayers I know (including myself there) do it for themselves and their friends, not really the audience. But then, I’ve never crossplayed - well, unless Frank-N-Furter counts.
No conflict between a film being “disturbing” and being deliberately misogynistic; that is a device among others. Cf. also Antichrist and reactions thereto, and so on.
I’m with pulykamell on this one. If you haven’t personally engaged with a work, and are just going off reviews, you don’t really have an opinion about the work, you have an opinion about how the work’s advertised. Which is fine, as a way to triage how we all spend our limited time, but it’s not the same as actually knowing what the work is about and how it’s about it. Even if you’re reading in-depth criticism, you are at best relaying someone else’s opinion about the work.
This can be frustrating to people who have experienced the work, and are trying to have a discussion about it, because there’s nothing to engage with there. “I’ve seen the movie, and I didn’t like it because it was misogynistic,” means you can discuss the issues that person had with the movie. “I haven’t seen the movie, but I heard it was misogynistic,” - there’s not really a way to debate that, because the person making the assertion about the movie isn’t actually in the conversation. It’s not quite a threadshit, but it feels very adjacent to one.
There are some fuzzy cases. When I first read some of Dave Chappelle’s comedy on trans folk, I was pretty comfortable saying he was being an asshole. Some people were like, “No, you have to watch his performance, he’s not being as hateful as the words on the page sound!” and I didn’t have much patience with that: I didn’t want to give him money just so I could say, “Yup, he sure says the things he’s quoted as saying.”
Since then, Facebook spent awhile showing me snippets of his shows, and it turns out that yup, he sure said the things he was quoted as saying, and nope, it wasn’t any better than I thought.
I never saw the Atlas Shrugged movie, because I’m pretty sure it was a cat turd sold as a Hundred Grand bar. And I’m comfortable saying that, based on what I know about Ayn Rand, the novel, and the producers of the movie.
Something like Poor Things? I haven’t seen it. I also know I’m sometimes unaware of issues with male gaze, and need to pay attention to folks who bring them up. Eonwe’s concerns are something I can consider if I see the movie, and I sure don’t mind hearing them. But I won’t take them as seriously as I’d take concerns from someone who’s actually seen the movie.
This part I agree with. It might be more appropriate to say something like, “I’ve heard that Chappelle keeps making jokes whose punchlines are ‘transwomen sometimes have penises,’ and that sounds pretty fucked up to me, is that true?”
Same here. “Everything Everywhere All at Once” has violence which I think would at the least make it PG-13. And following the movie is not easy so I think it’d take a bright 15yo to track with the story. But yeah, I wouldn’t be fussed with a 15yo seeing it beyond worrying they might be bored.
“Poor Things” though…no way for a 15yo (and I say that thinking back to when I was 15…I don’t think I would be “damaged” seeing it but I don’t think I’d be ready for something like that either).