Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Here's hoping

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Feedback] >> Empire Online >> RE: Here's hoping Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Here's hoping - 23/11/2012 9:38:19 AM   
Russ Whitfield

 

Posts: 425
Joined: 10/4/2012
Where as this movie promotes women in a positive light and was conceived way before Adi "I've just had this great idea" Shankar came along. Natassia "BloodRayne" Malthe, LeeAnne "Viper" Liebenberg, Gary Daniels... its going to be a cult classic.

Currently in negotiations for filthy lucre, this is an act of shameless self-promotion.

And female empowerment.

http://www.soldiergirlsmovie.com

But to the point: there are many bad movies that are loved by a disproportionate amount of people. But I think that Twilight suffers more than most at the hands of film fans (like visitors to this forum as opposed to the casual multi-plex goer) because its SO shit yet SO popular at the time. It's like a skidmark on the pants of cinema that has been mistaken for something edible by the public at large.

I'd have to say say that I'm more on-side with Quinten's views, but I don't feel that Helen's piece is at all cynical. I think that both (main) advocates here have good points - Helen's crucial one for me (though it was said as an aside) is the ripple effect that this could/should have on female creatives. Twilight (and to a greater extent though it sickens me to say it 50 Shades) are real leaps forward in female leads - if not female empowerment. Both are making zillions and zillions of dollars which - we hope - will ensure that the bean counters will look more seriously at worthier projects (see above, bean counters).

So its clear that - if we dive even slightly beneath the surface - Twilight hardly presents a progressive feminist attitude, On the other hand, I'm sure its not too far far from the truth that teenage girls have run after insanely hot bad boys for before and will do so again. So from this respect, Twilight does speak to its "target audience" - I'm sure that some teenage girls can identify with Bella at some level.

If Twilight leads female creatives to other things like Buffy, dare I say Charmed (before it got shit), Lara Croft, Aliens etc, that can only be a good thing. Equally, as Quinten points out, the Twilight films are bollocks of the highest order. But if that shit fertilizes the ground for better female led movies in the future, I'm all for it. (I'm impressed with my shit metaphor, there).





_____________________________

www.soldiergirlsmovie.com/
www.i-spimovie.com/

(in reply to Quentin Black)
Post #: 31
RE: Here's hoping - 27/11/2012 3:19:17 PM   
Helen OHara

 

Posts: 3565
Joined: 15/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quentin Black

Hi Helen

1) I don't see many people writing articles on how the Taken films or Jason Statham's latest offering are misunderstood, important films and if you did you'd likely have a lot of people replying with equal vitriol. The point is we shouldn't be defending bad films, regardless of the gender of the lead, period.

Feminism wise you have a poorly depicted teenage girl whose life revolves around two inappropriate, dangerous and slightly abusive boys. She endangers her life and the life of others when she doesn't get to be with the older boy (mentally he is older by centuries, which is made extra creepy by the fact that she was a minor when he met her), a tactic that works. Instead of being accepted for who she is she ends up changing herself and her life to be with this boy, in the process becoming this perfect being that the world revolves around like it was her destiny. This is hardly a healthy and positive message to send to young girls.


You use bold text really oddly. I didn't say that Twilight was important as a film; I said its effects are important. I think both Taken and Jason Statham's careers have also had knock-on effects on the sort of film made; others have written about the influence of both. Perhaps you should read more widely?

I agree she's poorly depicted in the books (I think she's better drawn in the films) but I'm not quite sure why you think the boys are either "inappropriate" or "slightly abusive". Technically the older boy is himself a minor, since he died at 17, and if we're being pernickety he's almost exactly a century older than her, not centuries. Also, he quite explicitly DOES accept her for who she is; she is the one who insists on what she sees as a growth step in becoming a vampire.

People forever change their lives to be with other people, even if it's only in moving in together or becoming parents. Twilight may portray this in a rather bizarre way, but it's hardly dangerous in that - and it's incredibly patronising to suggest that even teenage girls can't tell the difference between a fantasy vampire and bad influences in real life.


quote:

2) You've seemed to have missed the point I was making to Baerrtt. I'm not saying that having female leads in an action based film is not possible due to social prejudices. I clearly point out a number of great thrillers and action films with female leads. I'm stating a fact that good action films with female leads are harder to make because they require better writing, while male lead action films can be successful with the right star and big explosions (especially in the 80s). Great writing in action films is quite rare, regardless of the gender of the lead. Source material and the quality writing is a larger factor in the imbalance between male and female leads in successful action films than the perceived lack of demand or any unwillingness to supply it. An article about how crucial the writing process is for these upcoming adaptations in determining how successfully they portray and appeal to the female demographic would have more credibility.


I'm fine for credibility, thanks.

I'm not sure why you think it's that much harder, writing-wise, to write for a female hero. And source material? A heck of a lot of action movies are original stories, and sometimes a simple recasting and an additional letter A will sort it all out (Salt).

quote:

3) The point I prove with that list is that women are not underrepresented in film, they are underrepresented in certain genres for a number of reasons, some of which I and others have mentioned. The arithmetic is arguable because you don't ever explore the factors that correlate to where and how women are underrepresented, why they are underrepresented and how women should be represented. Your perceived notion that more equals better is a rather faulty one and your supporting ideas based around popular hot-button topics like feminism seem to be deliberately vague.

I'm afraid you don't prove any point with that list. Women ARE underrepresented in film; they make up about 25-30% of speaking characters in films. Of course more doesn't equal better, but it does equal equal - and that is better.

quote:

4) Even after Lion King they attempted to make female lead films for a number of years (Pochahontas and Mulan being the most notable) and it just so happened that they weren't very good or very successful. There a number of factors in the decline of the Disney tradition of female leads, one of which was the continual success of Pixar after Lion King came out. The Princess and the Frog was a brave return to tradition which was well received and example of how studios do want to make films that respect the female demographic. It just so happens that Pixar are very, very good at making great films and so Brave is simply a better film and thus performed better than most of Disney's output since the Lion King.


You're kind of repeating what I said but not making any sense here. Pocahontas and Mulan were seen as under-performers, and Toy Story was a huge success but in an almost unrelated sphere. There was this bizarre belief on the part of all Hollywood that CG had killed traditional animation, rather than looking at story and the calcification of the Disney formula, but to say that Toy Story killed girl-focused princess movies is nonsense. CG is not a purely Pixar phenomenon, nor was Toy Story's success the reason that those films failed. The Princess And The Frog was an experiment, was seen as something of a flop and saw Disney distance itself from that approach in its subsequent efforts. Brave, meanwhile, is a relative underperformer for Pixar and doesn't prove anything.

quote:

5) In writing this article you are celebrating Twilight by perpetuating the media frenzy that just encourages more people to see it. The fact is the "bean-counters" still don't see the female demographic in the way they should and in trying to copy the Twilight formula are making more bad films that don't do justice to women in any way. The evidence that you use for your argument is The Hunger Games, but the positive depiction of women in that film has far more to do with the strength of the source material and adaptation. Unless more important factors like the writing are addressed no amount of money throwing is going to fix how women are portrayed in film and we will just end up with more poor formulaic attempts to cash in like Beastly and Red Riding Hood. The studios still won't respect the female demographic so long as they can make some extra money by patronizing women by superficially altering the genre and throwing some steamy thrills in to the romance. This is why it is all the more important to write articles and promote well written films that do present women in the right way instead of writing articles like this that celebrate mediocrity.


So I should pretend things you don't approve of don't exist? Yeah. No. I did not say, or suggest, anywhere in the article that the quality of the films that follow Twilight doesn't matter. I have never in my life suggested that writing doesn't matter. But I specifically listed films that are being made as a direct result of Twilight's success that are, for the most part, based on stronger source material. I specifically did NOT laud Beastly or Red Riding Hood because they tried to replicate its worst aspects and didn't succeed - but that doesn't prove anything with the huge host of potentially better films behind them which might mimic the bits that work. I AT NO POINT suggested that adding "steamy thrills" would be the way forward. Try reading the article that's actually on the page, not the one in your head.

quote:

What I find cute is that you don't think your readers realize that an article like this is designed to draw in a certain fan-base to increase visits to the site, which in turns creates more profit for the magazine. I get it. Empire is a business. You could have wrote about how the strength of the adaptation and portrayal of Katniss Everdeen is leading the way for a new wave of film, only mentioning Twilight in passing, but seeing as Twilight is out you have crank up the hype for the fans. It's just a shame you get defensive over the article to the point of downplaying the importance that icons like Ripley and Clarice had on film. They, for reasons that I have mentioned, maybe the exception to the rule in specific genres and their influence may have been subtler but they, like I and many others have mentioned, have done far more for how women are portrayed in film and are far more deserving of such an article.

Twilight is Stephanie Meyer's immature teenage fantasy that depicts women in a negative way and justifying one's enjoyment of it (which people are entitled to) as if it is a misunderstood important film and it's success is a big win for women everywhere, is ridiculous and frankly lazy "journalism".


What your "commentary" fails to get is that this is not hype; this is meant to address a genuine issue. I suspect, from your basic errors, that your knowledge of Twilight is pretty limited - and yet you're ready to lecture us all on its shortcomings. This article is intended, solely, to rebalance that sort of fanboy angst and general haterating and get people to consider this series from a different point of view. I'm not defensive and I'm not downplaying Ripley and Clarice in saying that they haven't led to much - they haven't. I'm arguing with you because you're misreading my article, putting words in my mouth and generally acting like a typical Twilight hater. And this article was written for the many regular Empire readers of that type, because I think it's time to reconsider it from a different point of view. I don't suspect this drew many new readers to the site - it was certainly written for the ones already here. And if you think that's enough to get us a big ads revenue increase, well, what's the weather like up there in Cloud Cuckoo Land?

For the record, I don't have to justify any enjoyment of Twilight because I think they're OK at best. I just think its haters are, overall, just as unreasonable, close-minded and hysterical as its diehard fans.


_____________________________

"I never understood drinking. It isn't good for your looks, and it cuts down on what you are. I never wanted to cut down on what I am." - Mae West

"Movies are forever, and sex doesn't last" - Mae West.

(in reply to Quentin Black)
Post #: 32
RE: Here's hoping - 28/11/2012 4:04:17 AM   
Quentin Black

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 2/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Helen O'Hara

You use bold text really oddly. I didn't say that Twilight was important as a film; I said its effects are important. I think both Taken and Jason Statham's careers have also had knock-on effects on the sort of film made; others have written about the influence of both. Perhaps you should read more widely?


I use bold text because your previous reply demonstrated that you have difficulty getting the point. You can argue the semantics of the original article all you want but saying that the effect it has on cinema is important isn't any different from saying that the film is important. Others have written about both Taken and Statham films but few have many positive things to say about their influence.

quote:

I agree she's poorly depicted in the books (I think she's better drawn in the films) but I'm not quite sure why you think the boys are either "inappropriate" or "slightly abusive". Technically the older boy is himself a minor, since he died at 17, and if we're being pernickety he's almost exactly a century older than her, not centuries. Also, he quite explicitly DOES accept her for who she is; she is the one who insists on what she sees as a growth step in becoming a vampire.

People forever change their lives to be with other people, even if it's only in moving in together or becoming parents. Twilight may portray this in a rather bizarre way, but it's hardly dangerous in that - and it's incredibly patronising to suggest that even teenage girls can't tell the difference between a fantasy vampire and bad influences in real life.


WOW. This explains a lot. He's technically a minor? Are you seriously trying to say that he stopped aging mentally and will never mature or are you trying to say that the fact that he is mentally centuries (oh excuse me, a century) older and would have nothing in common with her (except for being hormonal) is okay because he has the physicality of a teenage boy? It's a bit rich accusing me of being in "cloud cuckoo land" when you sling around popular terms like feminism in a vague manner before making such statements that show such a serious breakdown in your understanding how relationships work in real life.

As for what's inappropriate...let's see...one is mentally far older than her, has killed people in the past and watches her sleep without her knowing...both expose her to a world of violence putting her life and the lives of the ones around her in jeopardy...having attempted and failed to forcibly be with Bella, the rejected one falls attempts to kill her infant daughter before falling in love with said infant. Please don't make me have to explain why these traits make them inappropriate for a teenage minor to be in a relationship with.

Patronizing? Well. You are correct in thinking people in healthy relationships can change their lives by moving in together and having kids, after years of being with someone, getting to them and discovering that they have enough in common and share enough life goals to make a commitment to the relationship. On the other hand a hormonal teenage girl asking a vampire to make her immortal by changing her species so she can be with his bad-boy good-looks forever after several months of being together, despite them not having much in common (apart from wanting to gaze longingly at each other) is not what many would call a healthy depiction of relationships or an example of a great feminist role model. No one is suggesting that girls in real life are going to chisel their teeth but anyone who can't see how Twilight's depiction of bad life choices and unhealthy relationships as being positive and even romantic is not good for hormonal teenage girls, needs to get a grip.

quote:

I'm not sure why you think it's that much harder, writing-wise, to write for a female hero. And source material? A heck of a lot of action movies are original stories, and sometimes a simple recasting and an additional letter A will sort it all out (Salt).


If you read the original comment that I wrote in reply to Barrett I explain why quite well, but for your benefit I will try to break it down for you in even simpler terms. Many of today's big blockbusters are action films. In action films a male lead is more readily accepted by society as being able to perform feats of physical strength due to basic biology and gender perceptions. Unless they're Gina Carano, to make a female lead more believable her strength must come from a mental desire to overcome both her physical limitations and inequalities in society. For example, Ripley and O'Connor had their protective maternal instincts while Clarice had her desire to escape a broken past. As the female action hero's strength is usually mental rather than physical, good writing and characterization is more important to the film's success than it would be in an action film with a male lead. It's not harder to write for a female hero but it is harder for an action film with a female lead to be successful without good writing.

Arnie, Willis, Stallone, Van Damme, The Rock, Statham, Diesel and many other iconic male action heroes have had successful careers despite many of their films featuring little more than big muscles, big guns and big explosions. Most of the most iconic male action heroes are remembered for their physicality.

What makes Ellen Ripley, Sarah O'Connor, The Bride, Clarice Starling, Buffy Summers etc etc so memorable and iconic when compared with the protagonists in films like Salt and Columbiana? Writing. Characterization. Most of the most iconic female action heroes are remembered because they are well written, three dimensional characters

As for my comment about source material, three of this year's highest grossing films are comic book films and another is adapted from a series of spy novels written in the fifties. The lack of iconic female leads in action films has a lot to do with the lack of iconic female leads in the source material. So to make action films with iconic female leads they need more original ideas and unsurprisingly, this comes back to the writing.

quote:

I'm afraid you don't prove any point with that list. Women ARE underrepresented in film; they make up about 25-30% of speaking characters in films. Of course more doesn't equal better, but it does equal equal - and that is better.


The point of that list (which was written in reply to Barrett's comment that things were so much better before because there are so few successful films with female leads in them in the modern era) is that there are many great films with female leads in the modern era. Can we make things more equal by making more big budget action films with female leads? Of course. Is that really better? It is if you want a load of terrible, formulaic action films with female leads to add to the huge list terrible, formulaic action films with male leads. While we're at it let's campaign for more male leads in terrible, formulaic romantic comedies, because we can never have enough of terrible, formulaic romantic comedies either. Hurray for mediocrity!

The problem with your logic is that assume more equals equality which equals better without ever exploring the factors that correlate to where and how women are underrepresented, why they are underrepresented and how women should be represented. In a business orientated Hollywood that loves the formulaic, more just means throwing crap at the wall until something sticks rather than diagnosing the problem and fixing it by focusing on quality.

quote:

You're kind of repeating what I said but not making any sense here. Pocahontas and Mulan were seen as under-performers, and Toy Story was a huge success but in an almost unrelated sphere. There was this bizarre belief on the part of all Hollywood that CG had killed traditional animation, rather than looking at story and the calcification of the Disney formula, but to say that Toy Story killed girl-focused princess movies is nonsense. CG is not a purely Pixar phenomenon, nor was Toy Story's success the reason that those films failed. The Princess And The Frog was an experiment, was seen as something of a flop and saw Disney distance itself from that approach in its subsequent efforts. Brave, meanwhile, is a relative underperformer for Pixar and doesn't prove anything.


Firstly, I never mentioned anything about CG or traditional animation so I don't know what tangent you're trying to go down. Secondly, Pocahontas, Mulan, The Princess and the Frog and Brave are all examples of Disney's attempts to make films with female films during the Pixar era. Once again, this was in reply to one of Barrett's comments that Disney doesn't make those female orientated films anymore. His insinuation that they aren't trying isn't true and the lack of good Disney films with female leads in them has more to do with the lack of good Disney films period, since Pixar established their dominance over the other animation studios. The fact that Disney have tried to make female orientated films repeatedly over the years (to varying success) and tried once again when they acquired Pixar (to much better success) shows this.

If the points that I'm trying to make don't seem to be clear to you it is because you've taken on points that were in directed at another commenter's comment (that states how things were better in the old days and how there aren't successful female orientated films anymore because Hollywood was unwilling to make them, whilst crediting Twilight for films that it had nothing to do with) and mixed them up with the points directed at you in my original post.

quote:

So I should pretend things you don't approve of don't exist? Yeah. No. I did not say, or suggest, anywhere in the article that the quality of the films that follow Twilight doesn't matter. I have never in my life suggested that writing doesn't matter. But I specifically listed films that are being made as a direct result of Twilight's success that are, for the most part, based on stronger source material. I specifically did NOT laud Beastly or Red Riding Hood because they tried to replicate its worst aspects and didn't succeed - but that doesn't prove anything with the huge host of potentially better films behind them which might mimic the bits that work. I AT NO POINT suggested that adding "steamy thrills" would be the way forward. Try reading the article that's actually on the page, not the one in your head.


No one is saying you have to pretend it doesn't exist. There have been plenty of articles and interviews on Empire over the years on Twilight and it is more than clear that Twilight does exist. It is, however, possible to acknowledge it's existence without perpetuating the media frenzy surrounding it. For example, you could just as easily write an article analyzing why the adaptation of Katnis Everdeen to film worked so well and how crucial the writing process will be for the upcoming wave of adaptations designed to appeal to the female demographic - in the process acknowledging Twilight's part in all this.

Instead the article loses what is a genuine issue to the hype, slinging hyperbole like "Twilight is a pivot point in cinema" and "Hollywood's salvation" and stating that the mediocre at best Snow White and the upcoming adaption of 50 Shades of Grey (media's next big thing and another offensive depiction of women) as evidence of this. You don't mention steamy thrills but based on the films that do replicate Twilight's worst aspects and the hype around 50 Shades of Grey, Hollywood thinks steamy thrills are part of the winning formula for this upcoming wave of female orientated films. You can quote the potential of all the upcoming adaptations all you want but unless the bigger issues are addressed properly, Hollywood is going to do what it always does, look for a quick buck by cashing in on what is hot - producing formulaic films, the majority of which will misunderstand what makes a good film good and still not treat the female demographic with the proper respect.

Worst of all you do downplay Ripley, Starling and the other female icons that many other posters have mentioned because they did change the perception of how women should be portrayed in mainstream film. Ripley paved the way for O'Connor and The Bride paved the way for Hit Girl, while many of those female icons are schools in how to create a complex female protagonist whose life revolves around something other than how hot their potential love interest is (something Twilight doesn't succeed at). Just because their influence is more subtle it doesn't make them any less important to the issue and saying it does is just a defensive knee jerk to justify an article that lost itself in the hype.

As for putting words in your mouth, I have never suggested that you don't think writing is important. In all your defensiveness you are mixing up my comments to another commenter, thinking they're directed at you.

quote:

What your "commentary" fails to get is that this is not hype; this is meant to address a genuine issue. I suspect, from your basic errors, that your knowledge of Twilight is pretty limited - and yet you're ready to lecture us all on its shortcomings. This article is intended, solely, to rebalance that sort of fanboy angst and general haterating and get people to consider this series from a different point of view. I'm not defensive and I'm not downplaying Ripley and Clarice in saying that they haven't led to much - they haven't. I'm arguing with you because you're misreading my article, putting words in my mouth and generally acting like a typical Twilight hater. And this article was written for the many regular Empire readers of that type, because I think it's time to reconsider it from a different point of view. I don't suspect this drew many new readers to the site - it was certainly written for the ones already here. And if you think that's enough to get us a big ads revenue increase, well, what's the weather like up there in Cloud Cuckoo Land?

For the record, I don't have to justify any enjoyment of Twilight because I think they're OK at best. I just think its haters are, overall, just as unreasonable, close-minded and hysterical as its diehard fans.


Having worked with teenage girls (who couldn't stop talking about it) in a mentoring capacity when Twilight first came out, having many female friends of varying ages (who have told me about it), attempted to watch the films (before the terrible acting made it unbearable), attempted to read the books (before the terrible writing made it unbearable) as well as having to put up with the Twilight frenzy in the media (where appealing to the lowest common denominator is more important than bucking the trend) I know more than I need to know about Twilight thank you.

I don't actually hate Twilight itself all that much, certainly no more than I hate Jason Statham films. From my very first comment I have stated that as terrible as they are, everyone is entitled to their guilty pleasures and guilty pleasures can be fun indeed. I have endeavored to debate all my points with clarity to all those that I reply to, even when you've gotten overly defensive, remained deliberately vague or seemingly gotten confused.

What I do hate, for the record, is the media frenzy that surrounds such a franchise of such low quality and articles which attempt to make it something greater than it is. If I have been overly cynical in your motivations, I apologize. However, the article is still lazy journalism, promoting a film that doesn't need more promotion and using up time and resources that could be better spent elsewhere. There is a genuine issue to be discussed here but this article fails to address it because it is lost in the hype of what the media perceives to be the flavor of the month or the next big thing, while dealing with complex issues like feminism and equality in a too vague and simplistic a manner.

< Message edited by Quentin Black -- 28/11/2012 4:35:16 AM >

(in reply to Helen OHara)
Post #: 33
RE: Here's hoping - 28/11/2012 3:46:35 PM   
Helen OHara

 

Posts: 3565
Joined: 15/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quentin BlackI use bold text because your previous reply demonstrated that you have difficulty getting the point. You can argue the semantics of the original article all you want but saying that the effect it has on cinema is important isn't any different from saying that the film is important. Others have written about both Taken and Statham films but few have many positive things to say about their influence.


I have no difficulty whatsoever getting well-made points, but you're completely misreading the article to make your case, to the extent that you're doing so. There's a clear difference between the film itself and the films that come after it. A film does not in itself have to be important, great or even good to start a trend; it just has to be successful. And the Twilight films ARE successful. I'm not even arguing that. That's simply true.

quote:

WOW. This explains a lot. He's technically a minor? Are you seriously trying to say that he stopped aging mentally and will never mature or are you trying to say that the fact that he is mentally centuries (oh excuse me, a century) older and would have nothing in common with her (except for being hormonal) is okay because he has the physicality of a teenage boy? It's a bit rich accusing me of being in "cloud cuckoo land" when you sling around popular terms like feminism in a vague manner before making such statements that show such a serious breakdown in your understanding how relationships work in real life.


Well the "cloud cuckoo land" was in reference to a different line of argument, which I see you've dropped. And who says they have nothing in common? Both are so underdeveloped as characters that that's a difficult case to make - and since their exclusive interest is one another, I'd say their interests are rather complimentary. Here I was merely pointing out the errors in your assumptions, and I'm really intrigued to know how you think that my comments about the fictional relationship between a vampiric teen and human teen serve in any way to show "a serious breakdown in [my] understanding how relationships work in real life." The comment about feminism here also seems to be a diss you've thrown in at random and unrelated to anything else in this paragraph, so whatever. I'd say I have a pretty good understanding of it, and merely note that feminism does not demand that every woman portrayed in literature provide, at every moment of her life, a strong and independent example of feminism, and that it is entirely conceivable that someone can be weak at times and still a feminist.

quote:

As for what's inappropriate...let's see...one is mentally far older than her, has killed people in the past and watches her sleep without her knowing...both expose her to a world of violence putting her life and the lives of the ones around her in jeopardy...having attempted and failed to forcibly be with Bella, the rejected one falls attempts to kill her infant daughter before falling in love with said infant. Please don't make me have to explain why these traits make them inappropriate for a teenage minor to be in a relationship with.

Patronizing? Well. You are correct in thinking people in healthy relationships can change their lives by moving in together and having kids, after years of being with someone, getting to them and discovering that they have enough in common and share enough life goals to make a commitment to the relationship. On the other hand a hormonal teenage girl asking a vampire to make her immortal by changing her species so she can be with his bad-boy good-looks forever after several months of being together, despite them not having much in common (apart from wanting to gaze longingly at each other) is not what many would call a healthy depiction of relationships or an example of a great feminist role model. No one is suggesting that girls in real life are going to chisel their teeth but anyone who can't see how Twilight's depiction of bad life choices and unhealthy relationships as being positive and even romantic is not good for hormonal teenage girls, needs to get a grip.


Also, he's a vampire. We should probably advise girls not to get involved with vampires. They might not figure that out otherwise.


quote:

If you read the original comment that I wrote in reply to Barrett I explain why quite well, but for your benefit I will try to break it down for you in even simpler terms. Many of today's big blockbusters are action films. In action films a male lead is more readily accepted by society as being able to perform feats of physical strength due to basic biology and gender perceptions. Unless they're Gina Carano, to make a female lead more believable her strength must come from a mental desire to overcome both her physical limitations and inequalities in society. For example, Ripley and O'Connor had their protective maternal instincts while Clarice had her desire to escape a broken past. As the female action hero's strength is usually mental rather than physical, good writing and characterization is more important to the film's success than it would be in an action film with a male lead. It's not harder to write for a female hero but it is harder for an action film with a female lead to be successful without good writing.


No need to be snippy. I got all of that from your first argument, and it's still rubbish. Many of those films are not set in the modern day and therefore the "inequalities in society" don't have to apply. And frankly, I can't tell you how irritating I find stuff like that endless "maternal instincts" bollocks - that's patronising nonsense. Women can kick ass on their own account if called upon to do so, and that back story shouldn't be any harder for a heroine in these films than for a guy. In many, MANY action films we're talking about an average guy on the run, or caught up in whatever, without any special martial training, and that could as easily be a woman.

quote:

Arnie, Willis, Stallone, Van Damme, The Rock, Statham, Diesel and many other iconic male action heroes have had successful careers despite many of their films featuring little more than big muscles, big guns and big explosions. Most of the most iconic male action heroes are remembered for their physicality.


Many, sure. All, no.

quote:

What makes Ellen Ripley, Sarah O'Connor, The Bride, Clarice Starling, Buffy Summers etc etc so memorable and iconic when compared with the protagonists in films like Salt and Columbiana? Writing. Characterization. Most of the most iconic female action heroes are remembered because they are well written, three dimensional characters.


I'd say that's true of most action heroes. You really thought The Bride was particularly 3D?

quote:

As for my comment about source material, three of this year's highest grossing films are comic book films and another is adapted from a series of spy novels written in the fifties. The lack of iconic female leads in action films has a lot to do with the lack of iconic female leads in the source material. So to make action films with iconic female leads they need more original ideas and unsurprisingly, this comes back to the writing.


RIGHT. Like the big long list of books I mentioned here, most of them with female leads, being developed on the back of Twilight. So glad you agree with my argument.


quote:

The point of that list (which was written in reply to Barrett's comment that things were so much better before because there are so few successful films with female leads in them in the modern era) is that there are many great films with female leads in the modern era. Can we make things more equal by making more big budget action films with female leads? Of course. Is that really better? It is if you want a load of terrible, formulaic action films with female leads to add to the huge list terrible, formulaic action films with male leads. While we're at it let's campaign for more male leads in terrible, formulaic romantic comedies, because we can never have enough of terrible, formulaic romantic comedies either. Hurray for mediocrity!


Well, way to be glass half empty. There are fewer female-oriented films in the modern era than there have been hitherto and vis-a-vis male-oriented films. Did I say, at any point in this article or here, that the only area of problem is action movies? No. I'm not sure why you're focusing on that. And I don't recall asking for anything terrible or formulaic - in fact, my piece stresses the hope that the films aimed at women will improve from here, and that things are being made on the back of Twilight's success that expand into entirely new areas. You seem to want to treat women like a boutique audience - make hardly anything for them, but make it good. That's a very nice idea and everything, but total nonsense. If there are more films aimed at women, there are more likely to be good films aimed at women. That's the way it works with everything else. Sooner or later, you hit something that works.

quote:

The problem with your logic is that assume more equals equality which equals better without ever exploring the factors that correlate to where and how women are underrepresented, why they are underrepresented and how women should be represented. In a business orientated Hollywood that loves the formulaic, more just means throwing crap at the wall until something sticks rather than diagnosing the problem and fixing it by focusing on quality.


I don't actually think there IS a set way that women "should" be represented. I don't see men demanding that they be represented in a particular way onscreen, because they rest comfortable in the knowledge that there are sufficient portrayals out there that any negative portrayal will be balanced by a positive one. For every Bronson there's a Lincoln. By all means let's make uniformly great films, but until that happy day let's make films that actually portray women AT ALL. And yes, I'm happy to take some dodgy characters in among the great ones to see that happen, and some mediocre films in with the good. I'd be happier with them were they all good, but I'm trying to operate in the real world here and I'm not going to condemn every character that fails to live up to my highest standards and hopes, nor will I refuse to acknowledge that good results can flow from mediocre films simply because I'm pissed off they didn't turn out better.

quote:

Firstly, I never mentioned anything about CG or traditional animation so I don't know what tangent you're trying to go down. Secondly, Pocahontas, Mulan, The Princess and the Frog and Brave are all examples of Disney's attempts to make films with female films during the Pixar era. Once again, this was in reply to one of Barrett's comments that Disney doesn't make those female orientated films anymore. His insinuation that they aren't trying isn't true and the lack of good Disney films with female leads in them has more to do with the lack of good Disney films period, since Pixar established their dominance over the other animation studios. The fact that Disney have tried to make female orientated films repeatedly over the years (to varying success) and tried once again when they acquired Pixar (to much better success) shows this.


It's not a tangent; it's what actually happened to Disney in the 90s. Films aimed at girls were (and are) seen as relative underperformers in the animation sphere, but generally speaking it's not Pixar's boy focus that was seen as its trump card but its CG animation. Hence my comments. Incidentally, this all stemmed back to a post of yours that began "Hi Helen" so I don't think it's unreasonable to take it as directed at me.

quote:

If the points that I'm trying to make don't seem to be clear to you it is because you've taken on points that were in directed at another commenter's comment (that states how things were better in the old days and how there aren't successful female orientated films anymore because Hollywood was unwilling to make them, whilst crediting Twilight for films that it had nothing to do with) and mixed them up with the points directed at you in my original post.


Twilight has a lot to do with the sort of films that I think baerrtt was talking about - at least SWATH and Hunger Games. And I've read baerrtt's comments and yours and I'm pretty sure I'm clear.

quote:

No one is saying you have to pretend it doesn't exist. There have been plenty of articles and interviews on Empire over the years on Twilight and it is more than clear that Twilight does exist. It is, however, possible to acknowledge it's existence without perpetuating the media frenzy surrounding it. For example, you could just as easily write an article analyzing why the adaptation of Katnis Everdeen to film worked so well and how crucial the writing process will be for the upcoming wave of adaptations designed to appeal to the female demographic - in the process acknowledging Twilight's part in all this.


So I can write about Twilight as long as I don't join a "media frenzy"? Yuh huh. I was not inspired to write about Katniss because I think the reasons its succeeds are pretty obvious - and you honestly think anyone needs the importance of good writing in film to be explained to anyone? And that is ALL film, incidentally, not just those "designed to appeal to the female demographic". That sounds like an incredibly boring article, lecturing people about what they already know. It seems to me that a better approach would be to see if I can look at something our readers generally see one way from a different point of view.

quote:

Instead the article loses what is a genuine issue to the hype, slinging hyperbole like "Twilight is a pivot point in cinema" and "Hollywood's salvation" and stating that the mediocre at best Snow White and the upcoming adaption of 50 Shades of Grey (media's next big thing and another offensive depiction of women) as evidence of this. You don't mention steamy thrills but based on the films that do replicate Twilight's worst aspects and the hype around 50 Shades of Grey, Hollywood thinks steamy thrills are part of the winning formula for this upcoming wave of female orientated films. You can quote the potential of all the upcoming adaptations all you want but unless the bigger issues are addressed properly, Hollywood is going to do what it always does, look for a quick buck by cashing in on what is hot - producing formulaic films, the majority of which will misunderstand what makes a good film good and still not treat the female demographic with the proper respect.


Have you read 50 Shades? No, didn't think so. You might want to read my blog on that, incidentally, since it's not half as offensive as you seem to think. And you're right, I don't mention steamy thrills, so once again you're conflating my piece with stuff I didn't say that you disagree with. Of course Hollywood is going to look for the quick buck - it's show business, after all - but sometimes they make great films anyway, amid all the formulas. But if they actually value women as a demographic, they'll put their top talent on it rather than the C-list, and if that happens then good films will follow naturally. And so yes, you're damn right I'm going to talk about potentials and hopes.

quote:

Worst of all you do downplay Ripley, Starling and the other female icons that many other posters have mentioned because they did change the perception of how women should be portrayed in mainstream film. Ripley paved the way for O'Connor and The Bride paved the way for Hit Girl, while many of those female icons are schools in how to create a complex female protagonist whose life revolves around something other than how hot their potential love interest is (something Twilight doesn't succeed at). Just because their influence is more subtle it doesn't make them any less important to the issue and saying it does is just a defensive knee jerk to justify an article that lost itself in the hype.


Again, they are the exception and not the rule.

quote:

As for putting words in your mouth, I have never suggested that you don't think writing is important. In all your defensiveness you are mixing up my comments to another commenter, thinking they're directed at you.


No, I'm looking at the bits you've highlighted in bold in a commentary on what I said. Aren't you pleased I took such notice of your system?

quote:

Having worked with teenage girls (who couldn't stop talking about it) in a mentoring capacity when Twilight first came out, having many female friends of varying ages (who have told me about it), attempted to watch the films (before the terrible acting made it unbearable), attempted to read the books (before the terrible writing made it unbearable) as well as having to put up with the Twilight frenzy in the media (where appealing to the lowest common denominator is more important than bucking the trend) I know more than I need to know about Twilight thank you.


I see - so you believe the hype and have read a bunch of articles slagging it off, as well as sniffing at what female friends have told you about it. OK, now I'm caught up.

quote:

I don't actually hate Twilight itself all that much, certainly no more than I hate Jason Statham films. From my very first comment I have stated that as terrible as they are, everyone is entitled to their guilty pleasures and guilty pleasures can be fun indeed. I have endeavored to debate all my points with clarity to all those that I reply to, even when you've gotten overly defensive, remained deliberately vague or seemingly gotten confused.


So people are entitled to guilty pleasures but I'm not entitled to write suggesting that they might have a lasting impact on the films that get made? Thanks for clarifying. You seem a little confused, incoherent and overly defensive yourself, I might add.

quote:

What I do hate, for the record, is the media frenzy that surrounds such a franchise of such low quality and articles which attempt to make it something greater than it is. If I have been overly cynical in your motivations, I apologize. However, the article is still lazy journalism, promoting a film that doesn't need more promotion and using up time and resources that could be better spent elsewhere. There is a genuine issue to be discussed here but this article fails to address it because it is lost in the hype of what the media perceives to be the flavor of the month or the next big thing, while dealing with complex issues like feminism and equality in a too vague and simplistic a manner.


Again, this article is not about suggesting that Twilight is great. It's about the impact that it has had on the films getting made. It doesn't "promote" Twilight - there's nothing in there that in any way suggests you should go see it or read it. It's not meant to be an in-depth, complex discussion of feminism - which you yourself seem to have a very strange notion of, if you think that feminists want all female characters portrayed onscreen to be positive role models but don't care that such females are a tiny minority of the whole. You also seem to be confusing me with "the media" in a too-vague and simplistic manner ("vague" is a word you've thrown about a lot, but not justified very much). And the article's not lazy, it took quite a while to write. I've also spent quite a bit of time dealing with your objections to it, which seem to boil down to "I don't approve of Twilight therefore nothing good can flow from it". But, y'know, however incoherent your position you're entitled to it.


_____________________________

"I never understood drinking. It isn't good for your looks, and it cuts down on what you are. I never wanted to cut down on what I am." - Mae West

"Movies are forever, and sex doesn't last" - Mae West.

(in reply to Quentin Black)
Post #: 34
Joss Whedon again - 29/11/2012 9:55:51 AM   
rwoo

 

Posts: 11
Joined: 14/7/2008
I seem to be developing a schtick for namechecking Joss Whedon whenever I post, and I'm going to do it again - I wonder if the context of this article would have been much different if Whedon had completed the aborted Wonder Woman movie. In other words, what if this movement had been bolstered by a major entry in the superhero genre (Catwoman obviously doesn't count)? [also curious whether the studio execs are kicking themselves about the WW episode following the success of the Avengers Initiative, but that's another matter]

Maybe he'll still eventually do a Black Widow solo outing. Or less likely, Maria Hill - just saying this knowing that he had Cobie Smulders in mind for playing WW (allegedly).

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 35
RE: Here's hoping - 30/11/2012 4:06:29 AM   
Quentin Black

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 2/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Helen O'Hara

I have no difficulty whatsoever getting well-made points, but you're completely misreading the article to make your case, to the extent that you're doing so. There's a clear difference between the film itself and the films that come after it. A film does not in itself have to be important, great or even good to start a trend; it just has to be successful. And the Twilight films ARE successful. I'm not even arguing that. That's simply true.


The evidence suggests otherwise.

You yourself state that you want others to rethink what they think of Twilight. Why? It's a terrible series of films that has been incredibly successful and has inspired more films, one or two of which may end up being decent but most of which will be the same formulaic crap. You don't have to rethink the film itself to get this. Yet you insist on using hyperbole such as Twilight is "a good thing", "a pivotal point" and "Hollywood's salvation". If it wasn't your intention to add to the hype and make Twilight seem like it is misunderstood and important then you need to stop writing in hyperbole.

quote:

Well the "cloud cuckoo land" was in reference to a different line of argument, which I see you've dropped. And who says they have nothing in common? Both are so underdeveloped as characters that that's a difficult case to make - and since their exclusive interest is one another, I'd say their interests are rather complimentary. Here I was merely pointing out the errors in your assumptions, and I'm really intrigued to know how you think that my comments about the fictional relationship between a vampiric teen and human teen serve in any way to show "a serious breakdown in [my] understanding how relationships work in real life." The comment about feminism here also seems to be a diss you've thrown in at random and unrelated to anything else in this paragraph, so whatever. I'd say I have a pretty good understanding of it, and merely note that feminism does not demand that every woman portrayed in literature provide, at every moment of her life, a strong and independent example of feminism, and that it is entirely conceivable that someone can be weak at times and still a feminist.


I can admit that I can be a tad cynical.

Well a feminist should understand that the key factor in a relationship is mental compatibility. Your comment about it not being creepy because he's technically a minor when in actuality he is mentally a hundred years older than her, as well as your comment that they have the complimentary interests of physical attraction, is such an immature justification of what is essentially a repressed woman's PG-rated teenage fantasy that it rather undercuts any point you want to make about feminism. I was actually rather shocked when I read what you wrote because the only other person I've heard use both justifications was a thirteen year old girl that I worked with when the books first came out.

Yes it is a fictional portrayal of a relationship but if you have to ask why they are inappropriate for her and why anything that depicts such bad relationships/life choices in such a positive way is not a good thing, then you are probably not the best person to write an entire article about feminism. There are plenty of great depictions in both film and literature of flawed women who make mistakes that are also strong, respectful depictions of women. Twilight is not one of them. Her flaws are little more than her being plain or clumsy and yet she is still the unjustified attention of every boy as if she is just oh-so-special in someway. Her mistakes - changing herself to be with creepy inappropriate older boys with no other justification other than physical attraction, self-harming (sorry thrill-seeking), endangering her life and the lives of others - turn out to be the right decisions as if it was all part of a special destiny for this perfect little ugly duckling. As I said before, a repressed woman's PG-rated teenage fantasy.

quote:

Also, he's a vampire. We should probably advise girls not to get involved with vampires. They might not figure that out otherwise.


No one is suggesting that girls in real life are going to chisel their teeth but anyone who can't see how Twilight's depiction of bad life choices and unhealthy relationships as being positive and even romantic is not good for hormonal teenage girls, needs to get a grip

quote:

No need to be snippy. I got all of that from your first argument, and it's still rubbish. Many of those films are not set in the modern day and therefore the "inequalities in society" don't have to apply. And frankly, I can't tell you how irritating I find stuff like that endless "maternal instincts" bollocks - that's patronising nonsense. Women can kick ass on their own account if called upon to do so, and that back story shouldn't be any harder for a heroine in these films than for a guy. In many, MANY action films we're talking about an average guy on the run, or caught up in whatever, without any special martial training, and that could as easily be a woman.

Many, sure. All, no.

I'd say that's true of most action heroes. You really thought The Bride was particularly 3D?


The inequalities in society comment was specifically referring, but not limited to, the character of Clarice Starling. As for the maternal instincts "bollocks" it served those films very well and made Ripley and O'Connor iconic characters. You see I like to back my statements up with quite a few examples.

So how exactly is it all rubbish? I named lots of iconic male action stars who have frequently coasted by on their pure physicality. Can you name lots of female action stars that have coasted by on their pure physicality? If it is as simple as swapping the gender of the role can you name me an actress who is as convincing as Arnie and Stallone in their countless roles where they flex their muscles and spit out one-liners?

The Bride was as well written as any other Tarantino creation and certainly more well written than the majority of the protagonists in male lead action films. It is sad but writing female led action films is harder because of the expectations of the audience and basic biology. Expanding on your example, an action film with an "average guy" "caught up in whatever" is likely to have a muscular lead actor taking a beating whilst taking out out henchman after henchman. Simply swapping the genders does not work since and action film with an "average woman" is likely to have a slim actress, who would not be as physically strong or robust, playing the part. She would have to surprise/outsmart the henchmen or draw upon their mental/emotional strength to overpower them physically. In essence writers have to get more creative. It is why Ellen Ripley is an icon and Edwina Salt is utterly forgettable.

quote:

RIGHT. Like the big long list of books I mentioned here, most of them with female leads, being developed on the back of Twilight. So glad you agree with my argument.


Yes because what we need is another Beastly.

quote:

Well, way to be glass half empty. There are fewer female-oriented films in the modern era than there have been hitherto and vis-a-vis male-oriented films. Did I say, at any point in this article or here, that the only area of problem is action movies? No. I'm not sure why you're focusing on that.


The reason why I'm focusing on action was because Baerrtt's comment was focused on big budget films that score at the box office, the majority of which are action. This would be clear if you'd stop confusing what I wrote in reply to your article and what I wrote in reply to his comment.

quote:

And I don't recall asking for anything terrible or formulaic - in fact, my piece stresses the hope that the films aimed at women will improve from here, and that things are being made on the back of Twilight's success that expand into entirely new areas. You seem to want to treat women like a boutique audience - make hardly anything for them, but make it good. That's a very nice idea and everything, but total nonsense. If there are more films aimed at women, there are more likely to be good films aimed at women. That's the way it works with everything else. Sooner or later, you hit something that works.

I don't actually think there IS a set way that women "should" be represented. I don't see men demanding that they be represented in a particular way onscreen, because they rest comfortable in the knowledge that there are sufficient portrayals out there that any negative portrayal will be balanced by a positive one. For every Bronson there's a Lincoln. By all means let's make uniformly great films, but until that happy day let's make films that actually portray women AT ALL. And yes, I'm happy to take some dodgy characters in among the great ones to see that happen, and some mediocre films in with the good. I'd be happier with them were they all good, but I'm trying to operate in the real world here and I'm not going to condemn every character that fails to live up to my highest standards and hopes, nor will I refuse to acknowledge that good results can flow from mediocre films simply because I'm pissed off they didn't turn out better.


Oh I see you are a fan of the let's spray crap all over the wall in hopes that something sticks method. Well while your trying to operate in the real world, you should probably realize that the negative portrayals and terrible films don't get balanced by the positive portrayals and decent films when Hollywood misinterprets success for a winning formula. They get outnumbered. How did those Harry Potter inspired adaptations you mentioned in your article do again? Even with a small sample size, the Twilight inspired films only have Hunger Games (which wasn't even that amazing) to justify the mediocrity that was Snow White and the abominations that were Red Riding Hood and Beastly.

The problem with Twilight is that it hasn't changed what Hollywood thinks of the female demographic, it just thinks it has found another winning formula to cash in on. You didn't ask for more formulaic crap but, by encouraging the media frenzy over the flavor of the month, that is what Hollywood is going to give you. The sad thing about all this is that all those millions of dollars and man hours could be spent on much more worthwhile projects that Hollywood deems too original or unmarketable.

quote:

It's not a tangent; it's what actually happened to Disney in the 90s. Films aimed at girls were (and are) seen as relative underperformers in the animation sphere, but generally speaking it's not Pixar's boy focus that was seen as its trump card but its CG animation. Hence my comments.


What set Pixar apart was it's creativity and story telling. The fact is Disney took a dive and my point is that it didn't stop them from trying to make films for girls. This was my reply to Baerrtt. I don't really know how much simpler I can make this for you.

quote:

Incidentally, this all stemmed back to a post of yours that began "Hi Helen" so I don't think it's unreasonable to take it as directed at me.


It's just getting silly now. The original comment that I wrote in reply to your article simply pointed out that while Twilight has influenced a wave of films it is still very much part of the problem and how you shouldn't get too defensive about your article with other commenters when you've written a long article on how Twilight is a positive portrayal of women. Everything that you quoted in your original reply to me was taken from a comment I wrote in reply to Baerrtt, that quotes Baertt and doesn't begin with" Hi Helen". I don't know why you decided to adopt his line of thought but since you did I thought I'd reply. You wouldn't need to get so defensive if you'd stop confusing what I wrote in reply to your article and what I wrote in reply to his comment.

quote:

Twilight has a lot to do with the sort of films that I think baerrtt was talking about - at least SWATH and Hunger Games. And I've read baerrtt's comments and yours and I'm pretty sure I'm clear.


Judging from your protests that I'm putting words in your mouth and your confusion on why I'm focusing on certain points, it is clear that you are still confusing what I wrote in reply to your article and what I wrote in reply to Baerrtt and you've since adopted.

quote:

So I can write about Twilight as long as I don't join a "media frenzy"? Yuh huh. I was not inspired to write about Katniss because I think the reasons its succeeds are pretty obvious - and you honestly think anyone needs the importance of good writing in film to be explained to anyone? And that is ALL film, incidentally, not just those "designed to appeal to the female demographic". That sounds like an incredibly boring article, lecturing people about what they already know. It seems to me that a better approach would be to see if I can look at something our readers generally see one way from a different point of view.


It is just an example of something that one could write but if that's too obvious why don't you go deeper? It's not like the initial premise of this article - Twilight is really successful so Hollywood is cashing in on teen novels that cross romance with other genres - wasn't something that people didn't already know. Too boring? I guess you could write another article about how Angelina Jolie is the new Clint Eastwood or how "character actors" are getting "handsomer".

quote:

Have you read 50 Shades? No, didn't think so. You might want to read my blog on that, incidentally, since it's not half as offensive as you seem to think.


If it's anything like some of the stuff you've written on this site I'm not so sure I do.

quote:

And you're right, I don't mention steamy thrills, so once again you're conflating my piece with stuff I didn't say that you disagree with. Of course Hollywood is going to look for the quick buck - it's show business, after all - but sometimes they make great films anyway, amid all the formulas. But if they actually value women as a demographic, they'll put their top talent on it rather than the C-list, and if that happens then good films will follow naturally. And so yes, you're damn right I'm going to talk about potentials and hopes.


You didn't mention formulaic crap with steamy thrills but that's what Hollywood thinks you want and unless more people, both in the media and in the industry, start bucking the trend, they're not going to value women as a demographic other than to make a quick buck. I do however admire your optimism.

quote:

Again, they are the exception and not the rule.


Again, more subtle doesn't mean less important.

quote:

No, I'm looking at the bits you've highlighted in bold in a commentary on what I said. Aren't you pleased I took such notice of your system?


Quite so. Still doesn't change the fact that you've gotten all confused in your defensiveness.

quote:

I see - so you believe the hype and have read a bunch of articles slagging it off, as well as sniffing at what female friends have told you about it. OK, now I'm caught up.


If it looks like crap, smells like crap, feels like crap and if I've given it a chance and it tastes like crap, I don't have to swallow to know what it is.

quote:

So people are entitled to guilty pleasures but I'm not entitled to write suggesting that they might have a lasting impact on the films that get made? Thanks for clarifying. You seem a little confused, incoherent and overly defensive yourself, I might add.


Correct because you work in the media and your articles, no matter how small, can make an impression on the way people (and in turn the industry) thinks. You have a responsibility to buck the trend of lesser media to avoid perpetuating the problems and to promote great films. Otherwise Empire might as well change it's name to Heat and start writing about how "character actors" are getting "handsomer".

Lasting impact? You do love your hyperbole don't you? The key word is might.

If you have trouble understanding something I can break it down even further and make it simpler for you but I've backed up everything I've said with an explanation and given plenty of examples.

quote:

Again, this article is not about suggesting that Twilight is great. It's about the impact that it has had on the films getting made. It doesn't "promote" Twilight - there's nothing in there that in any way suggests you should go see it or read it. It's not meant to be an in-depth, complex discussion of feminism - which you yourself seem to have a very strange notion of, if you think that feminists want all female characters portrayed onscreen to be positive role models but don't care that such females are a tiny minority of the whole. You also seem to be confusing me with "the media" in a too-vague and simplistic manner ("vague" is a word you've thrown about a lot, but not justified very much). And the article's not lazy, it took quite a while to write. I've also spent quite a bit of time dealing with your objections to it, which seem to boil down to "I don't approve of Twilight therefore nothing good can flow from it". But, y'know, however incoherent your position you're entitled to it.


Oh let's not play this game again. I admitted I was being a little cynical but let's not pretend that the timing of this article has nothing to do the Twilight features, Twilight interviews, Twilight reviews and the release of film. It's promotion.

One can definitely tell it's not in-depth or complex and that is the problem. Feminism is more complex than "more equals better" and so the "change" you talk about is just vague hot-topic-button-pushing nonsense about the "potential" for the future, safe in the knowledge that you don't have to qualify any of it. I wouldn't be using the word vague if you would offer more definition instead talking about complex ideas in such broad terms. I also wouldn't be using the word vague if you would back up your points with explanations and examples rather than unexplained denials and the I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I defense.

I do deeply respect that you've taken your time to defend your point. Still lazy journalism though.

< Message edited by Quentin Black -- 30/11/2012 4:31:37 AM >

(in reply to Helen OHara)
Post #: 36
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Feedback] >> Empire Online >> RE: Here's hoping Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.094