By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies & TV - Female Leads RULE the Box Office

vivster on 27 December 2017
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
vivster said:

The best way to enjoy Star Wars is having no expectations at all. I don't think the latest one is much of an improvement, but it's still very entertaining. Just don't try to think too hard about anything.

Yep. I actually kind of grew out of Star Wars a few years before episode 7, so the fact that it didn't mean my expectations was pretty shocking. Still, i'm trying not to have expectations for this new one. Which is partially why i'm avoiding it during it's hype/anti-hype all eyez on me period.

Now that I think of it there aren't even any noteworthy spoilers. I waited for the whole movie to see some shocking revelation or surprising deaths, but nothing. You couldn't even get spoiled if you wanted to. So I'd say you're pretty safe on that regard.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Around the Network
TH3-D0S3R on 27 December 2017
SpokenTruth said:
SuaveSocialist said:

Well, the critical consensus is that the live-action is a fresh retelling that faithfully honours its source material.  A good chunk of the positive reviews mention how similar it is to the cartoon, and at least 1/4th of the negative reviews complained that it was too similar.  

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/beauty_and_the_beast_2017/#contentReviews

The live-action and animated versions are almost identical, as far as the story and musical score is concerned (though the live-action has more songs).  The deviations mostly serve to fill in a few blanks left unanswered in the animated version, contextualize characters' personalities/motivations, and also adds a couple characters (though not all of the dinnerware made it into the live-action).  Gaston is no longer built like a Metal Gear, for better or for worse.

Basically, it comes down to how you feel about CGI or Emma Watson's acting/singing, because the differences will probably go unnoticed if you're unaware of them or haven't seen the cartoon in a while.  If you watch any given scene on YouTube, that should be an adequate litmus test if the visuals work for you or not.

Wait....more songs?  Hmmm.  Yeah, that might be excessive.  There was more than enough in the animated film already.

bdbdbd said:

While there's a lot of truth in it that a lot of women don't allow it, the cases in the newspapers, where a rich and famous guy is being accused of sexual assault, should be taken with a grain of salt. As we know the newspapers are willing to pay a lot for stories like that, and a lot of people want their 15 minutes of fame and money to go with it.

So those women in Hollywood that already have their 15 minutes of fame and money are doing it for what?  To help their careers?  Accusing your producer of sexual harassment is usually a career ender (hence why they rarely come forth individually).

See, automatically you defaulted to the women are lying approach.   A women says she is sexually assaulted and your first thought is she's lying.  No wonder they wait so damn long to speak out when too many men dismiss them outright. And no wonder women want more equality.  Right here you are giving them second tier status to men because you think they are lying for money and fame.

I'll try to answer this as best as I can because this is a VERY touchy subject.

In many cases there have been times where people HAVE been in it for the money and nothing else. An example of this is Michael Jackson. He did do terrible and vile things as far as we know, and in no way should it be acceptable. However, many of the parents went on record saying they just wanted a quick buck and had some past connections to MJ. This case situation has gotten so bad that many people now question if Jackson actually did anything in the first place

These people who willingly lie about being assaulted and harassed are absolutely disgusting, preying on the innocence of some people, as well as ilegitimizing the cases of actual victims and also spitting on the faces of those who have actually gone through this form of torture. They are greedy scumbags, and quite honestly are a different form of vial in their own right.

Now, do I think all women are liars? No, but, I also don't assume they are immediately right. It is Innocent Until Proven Guilty after all. I look at the evidence, the person in question and how he responds to it, and how the woman handles the situation. I wont get into the waiting to speak out argument, mainly because it is so long and convoluted with exceptions to the rule that I have no brief way of handling it or writing it out.



Insidb on 27 December 2017
Ruler said:
Insidb said:

He's encouraging, through his cabinet selections and rhetoric.

Beyond that, the family has a racist history that was only fortified by his most recent racist comments about Haitians and Nigerians.

Like any previous president did, Obama always said cops>everyone else when asked about police violence in the end of the day.

You know that the US always had a questionable policy to these countries, and foreign policy in general. The US invaded Haiti in 1994 and changed its government under Clinton. The 1966 coup in Nigeria that lead to a civil war probably had also CIA involvement. So what you are saying is that its okay to have colonial policy as long as you say nice words?

What I am saying is that he explicitly demeaned minorities and encouraged law enforcement to police with brutality.

I'm not commenting on foreign policy, but that only reinforces the assertion that these are systemic problems being evidenced by the sitting president.



Insidb on 27 December 2017
Signalstar said:
TH3-D0S3R said:

They let you do it. AKA, not assault. The women he had relations with allowed it, meaning there was consent between the two parties. Trump before being president was a powerful businessman, and I guarantee you if he felt as if he would get into some heat, he'd get out of there quicker than boiling water in a hot pot.

I don't want to defend this quote because I believe in loyalty, but saying this is clear assault is purely asinine. That's why the media dropped it, there's nothing there. The media hates Trump, and if they truly thought there was a 0.00000000000001% (such as the illegitimate, partisan Russia investigation) of something there, especially in today's society, they would go after him on this 24/7.

But guess what? They don't, further showing the evidence of nothing there.

It's in the quote. He doesn't wait for consent. He just starts kissing. What kind of hyteron proteron logical loops do you have to go through to deny this?. It's right in front of you. If you punch me in the face without warning and I am unable to stop you that does not mean I consented to you punching me in the face!

This is exactly the case: no further analysis needed.



o_O.Q on 27 December 2017
SpokenTruth said:
SuaveSocialist said:

Well, the critical consensus is that the live-action is a fresh retelling that faithfully honours its source material.  A good chunk of the positive reviews mention how similar it is to the cartoon, and at least 1/4th of the negative reviews complained that it was too similar.  

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/beauty_and_the_beast_2017/#contentReviews

The live-action and animated versions are almost identical, as far as the story and musical score is concerned (though the live-action has more songs).  The deviations mostly serve to fill in a few blanks left unanswered in the animated version, contextualize characters' personalities/motivations, and also adds a couple characters (though not all of the dinnerware made it into the live-action).  Gaston is no longer built like a Metal Gear, for better or for worse.

Basically, it comes down to how you feel about CGI or Emma Watson's acting/singing, because the differences will probably go unnoticed if you're unaware of them or haven't seen the cartoon in a while.  If you watch any given scene on YouTube, that should be an adequate litmus test if the visuals work for you or not.

Wait....more songs?  Hmmm.  Yeah, that might be excessive.  There was more than enough in the animated film already.

bdbdbd said:

While there's a lot of truth in it that a lot of women don't allow it, the cases in the newspapers, where a rich and famous guy is being accused of sexual assault, should be taken with a grain of salt. As we know the newspapers are willing to pay a lot for stories like that, and a lot of people want their 15 minutes of fame and money to go with it.

So those women in Hollywood that already have their 15 minutes of fame and money are doing it for what?  To help their careers?  Accusing your producer of sexual harassment is usually a career ender (hence why they rarely come forth individually).

See, automatically you defaulted to the women are lying approach.   A women says she is sexually assaulted and your first thought is she's lying.  No wonder they wait so damn long to speak out when too many men dismiss them outright. And no wonder women want more equality.  Right here you are giving them second tier status to men because you think they are lying for money and fame.

 

"And no wonder women want more equality.  Right here you are giving them second tier status to men because you think they are lying for money and fame"

 

how is he giving women second tier status to men?



Around the Network
bdbdbd on 27 December 2017
SpokenTruth said:
SuaveSocialist said:

Well, the critical consensus is that the live-action is a fresh retelling that faithfully honours its source material.  A good chunk of the positive reviews mention how similar it is to the cartoon, and at least 1/4th of the negative reviews complained that it was too similar.  

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/beauty_and_the_beast_2017/#contentReviews

The live-action and animated versions are almost identical, as far as the story and musical score is concerned (though the live-action has more songs).  The deviations mostly serve to fill in a few blanks left unanswered in the animated version, contextualize characters' personalities/motivations, and also adds a couple characters (though not all of the dinnerware made it into the live-action).  Gaston is no longer built like a Metal Gear, for better or for worse.

Basically, it comes down to how you feel about CGI or Emma Watson's acting/singing, because the differences will probably go unnoticed if you're unaware of them or haven't seen the cartoon in a while.  If you watch any given scene on YouTube, that should be an adequate litmus test if the visuals work for you or not.

Wait....more songs?  Hmmm.  Yeah, that might be excessive.  There was more than enough in the animated film already.

bdbdbd said:

While there's a lot of truth in it that a lot of women don't allow it, the cases in the newspapers, where a rich and famous guy is being accused of sexual assault, should be taken with a grain of salt. As we know the newspapers are willing to pay a lot for stories like that, and a lot of people want their 15 minutes of fame and money to go with it.

So those women in Hollywood that already have their 15 minutes of fame and money are doing it for what?  To help their careers?  Accusing your producer of sexual harassment is usually a career ender (hence why they rarely come forth individually).

See, automatically you defaulted to the women are lying approach.   A women says she is sexually assaulted and your first thought is she's lying.  No wonder they wait so damn long to speak out when too many men dismiss them outright. And no wonder women want more equality.  Right here you are giving them second tier status to men because you think they are lying for money and fame.

1. Yes, there are people who are willing to do that, no matter the reason. These Hollywood people seem to be very bad with money, apparently due to expensive lifestyle. Once you're past your prime, you're not getting any decent roles anyway, but being in all the talk shows can make you hefty amount of money.

2. You were just projecting yourself putting a second tier status to men - I never did put that status to anyone. I doubt the accusations, no matter who's accusing who. And without reviewing the evidence, it is impossible to say which one is lying, if the other side says he/she didn't do it. If you have a way to determine without evidence if someone's guilty or not, please let me know.

Last edited by bdbdbd - on 27 December 2017

Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

bdbdbd on 27 December 2017
SpokenTruth said:

By presuming their intentions are nefarious by default.  Despite everything that has happened this year, too many men are still dismissing the situation or placing blame on the women themselves or claiming they are doing it for money and fame.

Instead of, "Wow, look at all these women that finally have a collective strength to make a stand."
We are getting, "Wow, look at all these women trying to get rich with false accusations."

Ask a women if that doesn't make her feel second tier.

So, which one is it? Are they lying to get the money or are they finally strong enough to make a stand? Tell me, I'm anxious to know!



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

Ruler on 27 December 2017
SuaveSocialist said:
Ruler said:

5. i am just questioning why he likes them
6. how they are better in anyways over movies who do have male leads?

1. Because success is noteworthy, particularly when it manifests in new or historic ways.  Rather than whinge about it like a salty hipster, I give it a nod and a thumb's up.

2. Because Ben Affleck would have made a horrible Wonder Woman, for starters.  Gone are the Elizabethan days when females would have to pretend to be males in order to act on stage, and only a fringe audience wants to "Make Acting Great Again" by returning to those times.

3. I certainly wouldn't object if you consider Emma Watson to be fanservice.  Or Gal Gadot, for that matter.  Fanservice is whatever you want it to be and I won't take that away from you.

4. If by "it" you mean female lead, the odds are not in favor of Beau and the Beast bringing in the big box office bucks, no matter how much beefcake it might have.   I don't know of any LGBT movie that managed to crack the Top 100, so having a male take the lead probably would not have been a wise decision.

5. I never said I liked them.  Their box office performance is independent of any opinion I might have.  It's as I've said: success is noteworthy, particularly when it manifests in new or historic ways.  Female Leads have never RULED the Box Office before, but here we are.  

6. Their box office performance.  Not a single male-led movie managed to dethrone Beauty and the Beast this year.  Domestically, male-led movies couldn't even crack the Top Three.  

So what you essiantly are saying is that it matters only for you because of your Left Liberal identity/ideology or what you perceive as it? Because you clearly dont mention any aspect why these movies are any better having female roles in it over other movies.

I mean i dont know a lot about movies but at least some aspects of Anime. And there is a lot of reasons people told me about why they prefer female leads over males and it wasnt just fanservice and some cute moe characters. Like the fact that female characters at least in Anime tend to be more psychologically complex especially during puberty, the fact that they are physically weaker than males is also and aspect that gives the film a stronger impact in the end (like if a single girl saves the world in a believable fashion).

You can see that for example in Hayao Miyazakis Anime films where almost everyone had a female lead in it and he was doing it since the 80s. Yet many people can point out why they do like his films for that.

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/hayao-miyazaki-female-characters-part-one

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/10/hayao-miyazaki-and-the-art-of-being-a-woman/503978/



Why i left PC gaming

 

(2015) Question for PS4 owners: if the situation would be reverse? would you still play on PS4?

(2015) The "I don't care PS4 is the most powerful console" thread

SuaveSocialist on 27 December 2017
Ruler said:
SuaveSocialist said:

1. Because success is noteworthy, particularly when it manifests in new or historic ways.  Rather than whinge about it like a salty hipster, I give it a nod and a thumb's up.

2. Because Ben Affleck would have made a horrible Wonder Woman, for starters.  Gone are the Elizabethan days when females would have to pretend to be males in order to act on stage, and only a fringe audience wants to "Make Acting Great Again" by returning to those times.

3. I certainly wouldn't object if you consider Emma Watson to be fanservice.  Or Gal Gadot, for that matter.  Fanservice is whatever you want it to be and I won't take that away from you.

4. If by "it" you mean female lead, the odds are not in favor of Beau and the Beast bringing in the big box office bucks, no matter how much beefcake it might have.   I don't know of any LGBT movie that managed to crack the Top 100, so having a male take the lead probably would not have been a wise decision.

5. I never said I liked them.  Their box office performance is independent of any opinion I might have.  It's as I've said: success is noteworthy, particularly when it manifests in new or historic ways.  Female Leads have never RULED the Box Office before, but here we are.  

6. Their box office performance.  Not a single male-led movie managed to dethrone Beauty and the Beast this year.  Domestically, male-led movies couldn't even crack the Top Three.  

1.  So what you essiantly are saying is that it matters only for you because of your Left Liberal identity/ideology or what you perceive as it?

2.  Because you clearly dont mention any aspect why these movies are any better having female roles in it over other movies.

3.  And there is a lot of reasons people told me about why they prefer female leads over males and it wasnt just fanservice and some cute moe characters.

1.  If you can find such a statement, you are certainly free to quote me on it.  If.

2.  I'm not going to defend a position/claim/argument that I clearly never made.  

3.  I'm sure that was...enlightening...but I never mentioned any preference I might have, nor did I inquire into anyone's.  

I answered your questions.  What you choose to do with those answers is now up to you.

Last edited by SuaveSocialist - on 27 December 2017

o_O.Q on 27 December 2017
SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

 

"And no wonder women want more equality.  Right here you are giving them second tier status to men because you think they are lying for money and fame"

 

how is he giving women second tier status to men?

By presuming their intentions are nefarious by default.  Despite everything that has happened this year, too many men are still dismissing the situation or placing blame on the women themselves or claiming they are doing it for money and fame.

Instead of, "Wow, look at all these women that finally have a collective strength to make a stand."
We are getting, "Wow, look at all these women trying to get rich with false accusations."

Ask a women if that doesn't make her feel second tier.

but that's not what people are doing... people are abiding by the tenets of the justice system which are based on the idea that a person is innocent until proven guilty