Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

What do they got in here, King Kong? [Jurassic World]

1678911

Posts

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    jdarksun wrote: »
    jdarksun wrote: »
    Moved from another thread.
    Atomika wrote: »
    jdarksun wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    Thirith wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    If Trevarrow gets the IX gig, I'm gonna puke

    That guy is an untalented shitheel
    What makes him a shitheel?

    I've seen two of his films, and they've both been ugly, craftless, hackneyed piles of shit full of extremely dated sexism and chauvinism.
    Which two? Safety Not Guaranteed and Jurassic World were both good enough.
    Those two

    and no
    Yeah, apparently you and I have dramatically different definitions of piles of shit.

    But sexism? Really? Why, because there was a capable mother who also worked full time? Or because the career-focused individual with no exposure to children was focused on their career instead of children?
    This. There were a few scenes where the movie went out of its way to shit on Claire and we're supposed to be ok with that.
    When did it shit on Claire?
    When she told her sister that she'd spend time with her nephews and then blew them off to work more? What she did was wrong, but it's also totally in line with career focused people.
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Claire's
    lack of motherly instincts is played up as a huge character flaw. The entire subplot of the boys being out in the park by themselves and the way she reacts to it is pretty crazily sexist.

    There's also how she's basically never a prime actor in the movie, instead relying on big strong men with more useful skillsets the whole time. Her response to being told that she was poorly equipped to search for the boys on foot was to tie her shirt in a sexy knot for god's sake, not go look for a pair of boots and strap on some gear.

    The male lead, on the other hand, was treated almost universally positively by the story. All the way to the point that their relationship not working the first time was presented as her being too picky.

    I don't think I'm even particularly sensitive to this stuff, as my wife usually has to point it out to me, but this movie was pretty bad from that standpoint.
    Is it really her
    lack of motherly instincts that's the huge character flaw, or her Type-A personality?

    She sends her assistant (not a child care professional) to watch her nephews, instead of spending time with them like she (presumably) told her sister she would. That's not a lack of motherly instincts, that's being a dick to your sister's kids. It's also totally in line for someone who doesn't have kids and is career-focused: I can't do <thing> right now, I'm too busy. I'll delegate the responsibility instead.

    Is that the "lack of motherly instincts" of which you speak?

    She's a project manager focused on the financial bottom line. What part of that translates to dinosaur killing skills or wilderness survival? Shouldn't the fact that she immediately goes to the most capable person she knows be a point in her favor?

    The lack of sensible footwear was incredibly stupid. She was still wearing heels at the end when she unlocked the T-Rex's paddock? Really? Lame. They also missed out on a Hicks-training-Ripley scene where Pratt shows Howard how to use a gun. Regardless of that, where exactly do you expect her to find "gear" out in the middle of the park?

    Also can't argue with Pratt having no flaws, but I saw him as a secondary character in the movie.

    I was going to argue further by talking about Claire Dearing's character arc, but she goes from being a career-focused businesswoman without outside interests to learning a lesson about priorities (family is more important than work) and getting a boyfriend. So, uh. Yeah. I guess if you wanted to read that optimistically, you could call that a lesson in work/life balance.

    I guess I still kinda half disagree?
    Her arc is actually even worse than that.
    The point where she turns the corner involves her using herself as bait to release the t-rex onto an island that is still lousy with defenseless tourists. Instead of doing something personally awesome like smashing the new-rex with a car into the megashark pit, she literally damsels it to death. In complete disregard for the safety of everyone else on the island and the well-being of the park in general, when planning and such is presented earlier as her forte.

    They couldn't even give her a win without it being kind of terrible.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    Shadowhope
  • AbsoluteZeroAbsoluteZero The new film by Quentin Koopantino Registered User regular
    So what I'm getting in this thread is that JW is sexist because it presents a critique of a career oriented woman who lacks motherly instincts (though clearly said instincts kick in by the end of the film, that was basically her whole character arc for the film). Would it still be sexist if the role of Claire had been played by a man and nothing else was changed? A career focused man with a lack of fatherly instincts? I feel like this is a pretty common theme for movies and I've never seen it called out as sexist. I think putting your career before your family is a human flaw, not a gender stereotype.

    cs6f034fsffl.jpg
    FrankiedarlingAlphagaia
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    Chris Pratt's character was the same age, unmarried with no apparent kids. His life on the island precluded the possibility of settling down and becoming a parent, just like hers did.

    This was never pointed to as a reason that he was unfulfilled or somehow stunted personally.

    That's why it's sexist.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    Harry DresdenShadowhope
  • AbsoluteZeroAbsoluteZero The new film by Quentin Koopantino Registered User regular
    It's sexist because a male character in a completely different set of circumstances isn't presented to have the same flaws as a female character? So it must be because he has a penis and she doesn't? I'm not sure I follow the logic. He didn't put his career in front of the safety of others, family or not. She did. This is a human flaw, not a gender flaw, that has been explored many times, in male and female roles. To say that flaw is because of their genders is silly, and feels like you're trying to shoehorn in a sexist angle that just isn't there.

    cs6f034fsffl.jpg
    SyphonBlueFrankiedarling
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    It's sexist because being career minded is not a flaw.

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    CptKemzikQuidShivahnShadowhopeAtomika
  • MvrckMvrck Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    It's sexist because being career minded is not a flaw.

    As a kid who grew up with direct family members that pulled the exact shit that Claire did? Yeah it's a fucking flaw. Take away the context of the park and Claire being powerful enough to have an assistant, and those kids would have spent two days sitting in a house by themselves bored out of their fucking minds (or, as we saw, bailed and probably gotten into some sort of trouble).

    There is no level of work/business that is acceptable that if you promise you are going to spend some time with relatives left in your charge. These are human beings she was accepting direct responsibility for, and she blew them off from moment one. I had an uncle that did the same thing all the time, and let me tell you, visiting him were some of the most miserable experiences I ever had, because he didn't have a cool dinosaur park to distract me with.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited July 2015
    Mvrck wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    It's sexist because being career minded is not a flaw.

    As a kid who grew up with direct family members that pulled the exact shit that Claire did? Yeah it's a fucking flaw. Take away the context of the park and Claire being powerful enough to have an assistant, and those kids would have spent two days sitting in a house by themselves bored out of their fucking minds (or, as we saw, bailed and probably gotten into some sort of trouble).

    There is no level of work/business that is acceptable that if you promise you are going to spend some time with relatives left in your charge. These are human beings she was accepting direct responsibility for, and she blew them off from moment one. I had an uncle that did the same thing all the time, and let me tell you, visiting him were some of the most miserable experiences I ever had, because he didn't have a cool dinosaur park to distract me with.

    Was your uncle business running a multi-million dollar company and did your parents tell you what the job entails?
    Because the latter wasn't shown to be told, or cared about, by the kids parents in the movie. She didn't have anyone to tell her her side of what she's doing - even she caved to her sister's demands, who thought she was a bad sister. Her sister being pissed is understandable, what isn't is that she expected Claire to drop everything and babysit the kids personally 24/7 when she hasn't a close relationship with them in years and she's running a massive company. I have no idea if the family knows what she does, or cares what she does there. Even if she was a low level janitor she can't just drop everything to do that.

    Claire being career minded is a flaw, no problem here.
    Unfortunately it's hammered into her again and again by everyone from her bosses to her co-workers that she's terrible for being responsible at her job. We're never given a reason for why she took this job, how much she cares about it or if she cares about it at all and she's sacrificing to get there. The message that keeps getting thrown in her face is that she should stop being a career woman and settle down and have kids.
    This wasn't a simple character flaw, this was her defining feature as a character in the movie. Had they toned it down to reasonable levels, it wouldn't have become so problematic.

    Harry Dresden on
    Shadowhope
  • MvrckMvrck Registered User regular
    Was your uncle business running a multi-million dollar company and did your parents tell you what the job entails?

    When you accept responsibility for your siblings children, it doesn't matter. It was shown that Claire actually had no idea about her schedule and had obviously done nothing to clear it out (setting a dinner time, and being reminded by Zara, oh no you have something else going on). She never actually did anything critical to the minute to minute park running, because she spent about 15 minutes of the movie in the actual control room, and most of it was complaining about a wardrobe choice. Her whole job seemed to be doing the high level meta management of the park and be the face for the park to investors.

    But she put zero effort into making time for the kids. Nothing with her plans cropped up at the last second, she made no effort to integrate herself with the kids. And my point is, this kind of person exists in real life. And it doesn't matter how "busy" or "important" their job is. There is no excuse to neglect your responsibilities to your family if you agree to take them on.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    jdarksunFrankiedarling
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Chris Pratt's character was the same age, unmarried with no apparent kids. His life on the island precluded the possibility of settling down and becoming a parent, just like hers did.

    This was never pointed to as a reason that he was unfulfilled or somehow stunted personally.

    That's why it's sexist.

    What? I saw this last night and she was never pointed to as being unfulfilled or stunted because she didn't have kids. Her sister tells her, in the middle of sitting through her divorce proceedings, that kids are important, but that's it. The movie never touches on it again, and she doesn't have some grand epiphany at the end that she needs kids, she just realized that family is important and maybe she shouldn't have pawned off family members to someone else.

    There were definitely some problematic elements, such as her being in heels the whole movie, and the kids saying they want to be protected by Chris Pratt even though they had just watched their aunt save his life by pointing a dinosaur off him and shooting it, but the movie made no aspersion about her needing to have kids cause of her ovaries.

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
    jdarksunFrankiedarling
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited July 2015
    Mvrck wrote: »
    Was your uncle business running a multi-million dollar company and did your parents tell you what the job entails?

    When you accept responsibility for your siblings children, it doesn't matter. It was shown that Claire actually had no idea about her schedule and had obviously done nothing to clear it out (setting a dinner time, and being reminded by Zara, oh no you have something else going on). She never actually did anything critical to the minute to minute park running, because she spent about 15 minutes of the movie in the actual control room, and most of it was complaining about a wardrobe choice. Her whole job seemed to be doing the high level meta management of the park and be the face for the park to investors.

    But she put zero effort into making time for the kids. Nothing with her plans cropped up at the last second, she made no effort to integrate herself with the kids. And my point is, this kind of person exists in real life. And it doesn't matter how "busy" or "important" their job is. There is no excuse to neglect your responsibilities to your family if you agree to take them on.

    That is true. I'd say it very much matters, she was critical in running the entire park. She was the boss, the only person higher than her was Masrani - and he wasn't doing anything important there. He was acting like a visitor, he wasn't running the day to day activities - that was her. She didn't need to be in the control room to run the park, that's why she was dashing about, she likes to do things in person, and she uses the communication system when she has to. Being high level management and being the face to investors is a stressful, exhausting job which occupies most of her day. That's why she had to schedule appointments. Lady's busy. Her responsibilities as an executive don't vanish when her nephews visit, she has hundreds of employees to look after and a boss to answer to.
    I'm not saying she wasn't being a jerk to the kids, they should have been catered to better - but that didn't excuse her job responsibilities (if she did that as a low level employee and didn't have permission to leave to babysit the kids she'd have gotten fired for it). She wasn't neglecting them, not intentionally. That's why Zara's there and why she made them VIP's. Nothing excuses the parents not telling the kids about her job or given them reasonable expectations when they get to the island - that's just setting Claire up for failure, and then she gets emotionally blackmailed when she fails because she has a job to do. Things did pop up to stop her meeting the kids - besides having a busy job she got an appointment so she had to reshuffle when she'd see them that night and then the dinosaur escaped. That's why everyone looked to her when the dinosaur got loose, it was her responsibility to fix it. When she had time to go after the kids they were elsewhere being bait for any dinosaur in the vicinity. Including going into restricted areas and not returning when the ride closed when told to.

    Harry Dresden on
    adejaan
  • SarcasmoBlasterSarcasmoBlaster Registered User regular
    I just took Claire's lack of parenting skills/disregard of children to be yet another nod to the original JP. Dr. Grant didn't like kids, but kind of liked kids at the end. Therefore we'll do that again with a different character. Maybe a hamfisted attempt for sure, but that was the intent.

    Dark Raven XjdarksunTofystedeth
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    It's sexist because a male character in a completely different set of circumstances isn't presented to have the same flaws as a female character? So it must be because he has a penis and she doesn't? I'm not sure I follow the logic. He didn't put his career in front of the safety of others, family or not. She did. This is a human flaw, not a gender flaw, that has been explored many times, in male and female roles. To say that flaw is because of their genders is silly, and feels like you're trying to shoehorn in a sexist angle that just isn't there.
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Chris Pratt's character was the same age, unmarried with no apparent kids. His life on the island precluded the possibility of settling down and becoming a parent, just like hers did.

    This was never pointed to as a reason that he was unfulfilled or somehow stunted personally.

    That's why it's sexist.

    What? I saw this last night and she was never pointed to as being unfulfilled or stunted because she didn't have kids. Her sister tells her, in the middle of sitting through her divorce proceedings, that kids are important, but that's it. The movie never touches on it again, and she doesn't have some grand epiphany at the end that she needs kids, she just realized that family is important and maybe she shouldn't have pawned off family members to someone else.

    There were definitely some problematic elements, such as her being in heels the whole movie, and the kids saying they want to be protected by Chris Pratt even though they had just watched their aunt save his life by pointing a dinosaur off him and shooting it, but the movie made no aspersion about her needing to have kids cause of her ovaries.
    I guess I came away with a completely different read. Claire got to be a parable about the importance of family while failing at everything she did and Owen got to ride a motorcycle flanked by raptors and just generally be awesome.

    I suppose that's not inherently sexist, since those roles could be reversed, but they weren't so it's at least questionable. And the other details in the movie really don't help with that, at all.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    CptKemzik
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited July 2015
    I think people's different experiences as kids is going to influence how they feel about it.

    When I spent summers at my aunt and uncles we were routinely cut loose to go play in the woods around the age of ten whIle they did other stuff. So the idea that a sixteen and twelve year old need an adult around them in an ostensibly safe theme park where they're going to be treated as VIPs is foreign to me.

    Quid on
    Dark Raven X
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    The weirdest thing to me about this film is that... I'm pretty sure there's only 3 raptors in the movie, but I definitely saw at least 2 die (one gets blown up by an RPG, another exploded like a blood filled balloon when whats her face smashed it into a tree) yet at the end of the film all 3 were present to chase people / fight the I-Rex.

    Of all the things objectively wrong with the movie, for some reason that bothers me the most.

    There were 4. Only one died before the big finale.

    That means one of them survived being blown the fuck up by an RPG, or popping like a giant water balloon against the side of a tree. Doesn't sit right with me.

    Just came back from it and kept an eye out.
    There are four (Blue, Charlie, Delta, and Echo olol) and the one that hits the tree very definitely doesn't die from it. I mean, it probably should have, but after it hits there's a second of it kicking on the ground after the smash.

  • MvrckMvrck Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    I think people's different experiences as kids is going to influence how they feel about it.

    When I spent summers at my aunt and uncles we were routinely cut loose to go play in the woods around the age of ten whIle they did other stuff. So the idea that a sixteen and twelve year old need an adult around them in an ostensibly safe theme park where they're going to be treated as VIPs is foreign to me.

    There is a vast difference between needing supervision, and literally forgetting to clear enough of your schedule for dinner you knew was coming well in advance.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    jdarksun
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Mvrck wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    I think people's different experiences as kids is going to influence how they feel about it.

    When I spent summers at my aunt and uncles we were routinely cut loose to go play in the woods around the age of ten whIle they did other stuff. So the idea that a sixteen and twelve year old need an adult around them in an ostensibly safe theme park where they're going to be treated as VIPs is foreign to me.

    There is a vast difference between needing supervision, and literally forgetting to clear enough of your schedule for dinner you knew was coming well in advance.

    There's certainly a difference but within my fairly large family at least it's not an especially important one.

    Everyone's primary concern about kids inside out family is "Are they hurt?" and "Are they likely to get in trouble?" If I had gone up one summer and instead of my aunt picking me up it was an employee no one would have batted an eye.

  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Total Goober Registered User regular
    If the kid's mom posted this in H/A (minus the whole Dino attack), I'd say something like

    "it seems you both had different ideas as to how the kids were to be looked after and how much time your sister could/would spend with them. Leaving your younger son with an assistant with an unknown amount of babysitting experience sucks, yes. But I think you both needed to be clearer about what you expected out of this trip and what constituted as responsible supervision.

    From her perspective, she did you a huge favor just getting tickets and passes. She sounds busy and hasn't seen them in years. While the assistant babysitter was a bad choice, I don't know if it was reasonable to expect her to watch over them 24/7 like you do. And if that's what you wanted, you should of made that clear before the trip"

    Like, neither side is wrong or to blame, but both needed to be clearer on how they envisioned the trip going down.

    Harry DresdenQuidchiasaur11Shadowhope
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited July 2015
    Also,let's not forget that the original plan was that it was a family visit,oh and also mom forgot to tell sis she was getting fucking divorced. So yeah, this is not all on Claire.

    Fencingsax on
    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • AbsoluteZeroAbsoluteZero The new film by Quentin Koopantino Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    It's sexist because being career minded is not a flaw.

    Being career minded to the point that you put your career ahead of the safety of others, including your own flesh and blood, yeah that's a flaw.

    cs6f034fsffl.jpg
    jdarksunShadowhope
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited July 2015
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    It's sexist because being career minded is not a flaw.

    Being career minded to the point that you put your career ahead of the safety of others, including your own flesh and blood, yeah that's a flaw.

    They didn't respect Zara, you think they wouldn't have run off with Claire?

    She did try to save the park from getting destroyed by dinosaurs
    which Owen accidentally let out. She also did as well as she could under the circumstances at her job, and she risked her life going after the boys when they decided they wanted to get eaten by dinosaurs. So why is Owen getting all the glory?
    She has to look after everyone in the park, not just her flesh and blood. She didn't leave them to fend for themselves when they got off the boat.

    edit: The most ridiculous thing in the movie
    the older boy not creeping on Zara. There's no reason he'd be escaping from her sight at the first opportunity. Katie McGrath would have the opposite effect.

    Harry Dresden on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    It's sexist because being career minded is not a flaw.

    Being career minded to the point that you put your career ahead of the safety of others, including your own flesh and blood, yeah that's a flaw.

    I think you're missing the point

    the movie treats her career mindedness as a flaw

    but does not do the same thing to male characters

    Harry DresdenQuidShadowhope
  • MvrckMvrck Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    It's sexist because being career minded is not a flaw.

    Being career minded to the point that you put your career ahead of the safety of others, including your own flesh and blood, yeah that's a flaw.

    I think you're missing the point

    the movie treats her career mindedness as a flaw

    but does not do the same thing to male characters

    I don't know about that. Hoskins' career mindedness is absolutely a flaw. And in a "it takes one to know one" way he rightly points out that Pratt took his job knowing exactly what the end game was going to be with it. Is anyone here going to try to argue that Wu's portrayal was anything other than negative in regards to his work? Masrani is the only character to be portrayed as still really wondrous and excited towards what was going on at the park. Everyone else was quite comfortable using and exploiting the dinosaurs to their own ends, and the movie never really lauded that in any way.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Didn't Owen always want to get together with Claire? Also he didn't have any hangups regarding kids.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • SarcasmoBlasterSarcasmoBlaster Registered User regular
    I'm hesitant to say that Claire being career minded above all else (and that being portrayed as a negative) is sexist given that we've seen the character that values success/money/power over everything else but eventually learns the true meaning of family in roughly 9000 films at this point. And it's been both males and females and it's basically always a negative because that's the arc.

    Really the most sexist thing I found about the movie wasn't Claire being career oriented, or not liking kids (callback to the original JP), or winning the day by - I guess passively - running from the T-Rex with a flair (again, another callback to JP). It's the Romancing the Stone/Crocodile Dundee she's a prude he's a hunk scoundrel, he says "Gimmie some sugar baby" she goes *swoooooooooooooooon* stuff.

    TexiKen
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    How is risking her life luring a T-Rex all by herself "passive"?

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • AlphagaiaAlphagaia Registered User regular
    edited July 2015
    Family always has been a recurring theme between all jpmovies. In JP Grant started out hating kids and ends up finding a soft spot for them. In LW Malcolm was divorced and bonded with his stowaway kid that needed attention. In JP3 the Kirby's were divorced but bonded together to safe their kid and fall back into love. In JW it happened to be a female character running with the theme on their own and now its (part) of the reason the movie portrayal of this is sexist?

    I get the heels are a problem, but come on, people. It's an oversight that should have been addressed, but I would call it bad writing, not sexism.

    Alphagaia on
    Wanna try my Mario Maker levels?

    Shoot m to BITS (hold Y) [hard] C109-0000-014D-4E09
    P-POWER Switch Palace 3838-0000-0122-9359
    Raiding the Serpents Tomb 1A04-0000-0098-C11E
    I like to move it, move it FCE2-0000-00D7-9048

    See my profile here!
    SyphonBlue
  • Dark Raven XDark Raven X Laugh hard, run fast, be kindRegistered User regular
    The heels were Bryce Dallas Howard's fault, not the writing or director. For some bizarre reason she was adamant she kept em throughout the movie.

    Oh brilliant
    Harry Dresden
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited July 2015
    Alphagaia wrote: »
    Family always has been a recurring theme between all jpmovies. In JP Grant started out hating kids and ends up finding a soft spot for them. In LW Malcolm was divorced and bonded with his stowaway kid that needed attention. In JP3 the Kirby's were divorced but bonded together to safe their kid and fall back into love. In JW it happened to be a female character running with the theme on their own and now its (part) of the reason the movie portrayal of this is sexist?

    I get the heels are a problem, but come on, people. It's an oversight that should have been addressed, but I would call it bad writing, not sexism.


    It's mostly all about JP1, because this movie was trying to recreate that feeling, without the director knowing anything about why Spielberg did what he did. The difference is that Grant wasn't treated as somehow incomplete in his life, he wasn't treated as if he had made all of the wrong decisions in his life, his priorities in life just changed due to what happened in the movie. Everyone in JW is treating Claire like a freak because apparently yeah, she's accomplished so much she basically runs a multimillion dollar company, but she doesn't have kids or a family so how can she possibly be fulfilled in anything? What has she done in her life that she can be proud of? It's the same shit that's been heaped upon people like Justice Kagan. And if you don't remember that, well, that's not because that shit didn't happen.

    Fencingsax on
    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Alphagaia wrote: »
    Family always has been a recurring theme between all jpmovies. In JP Grant started out hating kids and ends up finding a soft spot for them. In LW Malcolm was divorced and bonded with his stowaway kid that needed attention. In JP3 the Kirby's were divorced but bonded together to safe their kid and fall back into love. In JW it happened to be a female character running with the theme on their own and now its (part) of the reason the movie portrayal of this is sexist?

    I get the heels are a problem, but come on, people. It's an oversight that should have been addressed, but I would call it bad writing, not sexism.


    It's mostly all about JP1, because this movie was trying to recreate that feeling, without the director knowing anything about why Spielberg did what he did. The difference is that Grant wasn't treated as somehow incomplete in his life, he wasn't treated as if he had made all of the wrong decisions in his life, his priorities in life just changed due to what happened in the movie. Everyone in JW is treating Claire like a freak because apparently yeah, she's accomplished so much she basically runs a multimillion dollar company, but she doesn't have kids or a family so how can she possibly be fulfilled in anything? What has she done in her life that she can be proud of? It's the same shit that's been heaped upon people like Justice Kagan. And if you don't remember that, well, that's not because that shit didn't happen.
    I think you need to watch the movie again because nobody is doing any of this in it

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • AtomikaAtomika Brought to you by Technicolor™ Registered User regular
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Alphagaia wrote: »
    Family always has been a recurring theme between all jpmovies. In JP Grant started out hating kids and ends up finding a soft spot for them. In LW Malcolm was divorced and bonded with his stowaway kid that needed attention. In JP3 the Kirby's were divorced but bonded together to safe their kid and fall back into love. In JW it happened to be a female character running with the theme on their own and now its (part) of the reason the movie portrayal of this is sexist?

    I get the heels are a problem, but come on, people. It's an oversight that should have been addressed, but I would call it bad writing, not sexism.


    It's mostly all about JP1, because this movie was trying to recreate that feeling, without the director knowing anything about why Spielberg did what he did. The difference is that Grant wasn't treated as somehow incomplete in his life, he wasn't treated as if he had made all of the wrong decisions in his life, his priorities in life just changed due to what happened in the movie. Everyone in JW is treating Claire like a freak because apparently yeah, she's accomplished so much she basically runs a multimillion dollar company, but she doesn't have kids or a family so how can she possibly be fulfilled in anything? What has she done in her life that she can be proud of? It's the same shit that's been heaped upon people like Justice Kagan. And if you don't remember that, well, that's not because that shit didn't happen.
    I think you need to watch the movie again because nobody is doing any of this in it

    I think if legions of people are levying the same complaints at the film, including people like Joss Whedon, it's a little insulting to start gaslighting people just because you either aren't aware of what the complaints are or don't see their validity.

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Alphagaia wrote: »
    Family always has been a recurring theme between all jpmovies. In JP Grant started out hating kids and ends up finding a soft spot for them. In LW Malcolm was divorced and bonded with his stowaway kid that needed attention. In JP3 the Kirby's were divorced but bonded together to safe their kid and fall back into love. In JW it happened to be a female character running with the theme on their own and now its (part) of the reason the movie portrayal of this is sexist?

    I get the heels are a problem, but come on, people. It's an oversight that should have been addressed, but I would call it bad writing, not sexism.


    It's mostly all about JP1, because this movie was trying to recreate that feeling, without the director knowing anything about why Spielberg did what he did. The difference is that Grant wasn't treated as somehow incomplete in his life, he wasn't treated as if he had made all of the wrong decisions in his life, his priorities in life just changed due to what happened in the movie. Everyone in JW is treating Claire like a freak because apparently yeah, she's accomplished so much she basically runs a multimillion dollar company, but she doesn't have kids or a family so how can she possibly be fulfilled in anything? What has she done in her life that she can be proud of? It's the same shit that's been heaped upon people like Justice Kagan. And if you don't remember that, well, that's not because that shit didn't happen.
    I think you need to watch the movie again because nobody is doing any of this in it

    Her sister literally told her she was gonna have kids herself despite not wanting to.

    AtomikaQuidArchHarry Dresden
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Alphagaia wrote: »
    Family always has been a recurring theme between all jpmovies. In JP Grant started out hating kids and ends up finding a soft spot for them. In LW Malcolm was divorced and bonded with his stowaway kid that needed attention. In JP3 the Kirby's were divorced but bonded together to safe their kid and fall back into love. In JW it happened to be a female character running with the theme on their own and now its (part) of the reason the movie portrayal of this is sexist?

    I get the heels are a problem, but come on, people. It's an oversight that should have been addressed, but I would call it bad writing, not sexism.


    It's mostly all about JP1, because this movie was trying to recreate that feeling, without the director knowing anything about why Spielberg did what he did. The difference is that Grant wasn't treated as somehow incomplete in his life, he wasn't treated as if he had made all of the wrong decisions in his life, his priorities in life just changed due to what happened in the movie. Everyone in JW is treating Claire like a freak because apparently yeah, she's accomplished so much she basically runs a multimillion dollar company, but she doesn't have kids or a family so how can she possibly be fulfilled in anything? What has she done in her life that she can be proud of? It's the same shit that's been heaped upon people like Justice Kagan. And if you don't remember that, well, that's not because that shit didn't happen.
    I think you need to watch the movie again because nobody is doing any of this in it

    Her sister literally told her she was gonna have kids herself despite not wanting to.

    Literally while she's getting a divorce

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    AtomikaHarry Dresden
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Alphagaia wrote: »
    Family always has been a recurring theme between all jpmovies. In JP Grant started out hating kids and ends up finding a soft spot for them. In LW Malcolm was divorced and bonded with his stowaway kid that needed attention. In JP3 the Kirby's were divorced but bonded together to safe their kid and fall back into love. In JW it happened to be a female character running with the theme on their own and now its (part) of the reason the movie portrayal of this is sexist?

    I get the heels are a problem, but come on, people. It's an oversight that should have been addressed, but I would call it bad writing, not sexism.


    It's mostly all about JP1, because this movie was trying to recreate that feeling, without the director knowing anything about why Spielberg did what he did. The difference is that Grant wasn't treated as somehow incomplete in his life, he wasn't treated as if he had made all of the wrong decisions in his life, his priorities in life just changed due to what happened in the movie. Everyone in JW is treating Claire like a freak because apparently yeah, she's accomplished so much she basically runs a multimillion dollar company, but she doesn't have kids or a family so how can she possibly be fulfilled in anything? What has she done in her life that she can be proud of? It's the same shit that's been heaped upon people like Justice Kagan. And if you don't remember that, well, that's not because that shit didn't happen.
    I think you need to watch the movie again because nobody is doing any of this in it

    Her sister literally told her she was gonna have kids herself despite not wanting to.

    Literally while she's getting a divorce

    And that's literally the only person who mentions it. And it is literally the only time in the movie it is brought up. And the movie literally never touches on it again.

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Alphagaia wrote: »
    Family always has been a recurring theme between all jpmovies. In JP Grant started out hating kids and ends up finding a soft spot for them. In LW Malcolm was divorced and bonded with his stowaway kid that needed attention. In JP3 the Kirby's were divorced but bonded together to safe their kid and fall back into love. In JW it happened to be a female character running with the theme on their own and now its (part) of the reason the movie portrayal of this is sexist?

    I get the heels are a problem, but come on, people. It's an oversight that should have been addressed, but I would call it bad writing, not sexism.


    It's mostly all about JP1, because this movie was trying to recreate that feeling, without the director knowing anything about why Spielberg did what he did. The difference is that Grant wasn't treated as somehow incomplete in his life, he wasn't treated as if he had made all of the wrong decisions in his life, his priorities in life just changed due to what happened in the movie. Everyone in JW is treating Claire like a freak because apparently yeah, she's accomplished so much she basically runs a multimillion dollar company, but she doesn't have kids or a family so how can she possibly be fulfilled in anything? What has she done in her life that she can be proud of? It's the same shit that's been heaped upon people like Justice Kagan. And if you don't remember that, well, that's not because that shit didn't happen.
    I think you need to watch the movie again because nobody is doing any of this in it

    Her sister literally told her she was gonna have kids herself despite not wanting to.

    Literally while she's getting a divorce

    And that's literally the only person who mentions it. And it is literally the only time in the movie it is brought up. And the movie literally never touches on it again.
    Well, except for Owen. And Her boss. And her subordinates.

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    Harry Dresden
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Alphagaia wrote: »
    Family always has been a recurring theme between all jpmovies. In JP Grant started out hating kids and ends up finding a soft spot for them. In LW Malcolm was divorced and bonded with his stowaway kid that needed attention. In JP3 the Kirby's were divorced but bonded together to safe their kid and fall back into love. In JW it happened to be a female character running with the theme on their own and now its (part) of the reason the movie portrayal of this is sexist?

    I get the heels are a problem, but come on, people. It's an oversight that should have been addressed, but I would call it bad writing, not sexism.


    It's mostly all about JP1, because this movie was trying to recreate that feeling, without the director knowing anything about why Spielberg did what he did. The difference is that Grant wasn't treated as somehow incomplete in his life, he wasn't treated as if he had made all of the wrong decisions in his life, his priorities in life just changed due to what happened in the movie. Everyone in JW is treating Claire like a freak because apparently yeah, she's accomplished so much she basically runs a multimillion dollar company, but she doesn't have kids or a family so how can she possibly be fulfilled in anything? What has she done in her life that she can be proud of? It's the same shit that's been heaped upon people like Justice Kagan. And if you don't remember that, well, that's not because that shit didn't happen.
    I think you need to watch the movie again because nobody is doing any of this in it

    Her sister literally told her she was gonna have kids herself despite not wanting to.

    Literally while she's getting a divorce

    And that's literally the only person who mentions it. And it is literally the only time in the movie it is brought up. And the movie literally never touches on it again.
    Well, except for Owen. And Her boss. And her subordinates.

    What? None of those people brought up anything about her having kids.

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • AtomikaAtomika Brought to you by Technicolor™ Registered User regular
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Alphagaia wrote: »
    Family always has been a recurring theme between all jpmovies. In JP Grant started out hating kids and ends up finding a soft spot for them. In LW Malcolm was divorced and bonded with his stowaway kid that needed attention. In JP3 the Kirby's were divorced but bonded together to safe their kid and fall back into love. In JW it happened to be a female character running with the theme on their own and now its (part) of the reason the movie portrayal of this is sexist?

    I get the heels are a problem, but come on, people. It's an oversight that should have been addressed, but I would call it bad writing, not sexism.


    It's mostly all about JP1, because this movie was trying to recreate that feeling, without the director knowing anything about why Spielberg did what he did. The difference is that Grant wasn't treated as somehow incomplete in his life, he wasn't treated as if he had made all of the wrong decisions in his life, his priorities in life just changed due to what happened in the movie. Everyone in JW is treating Claire like a freak because apparently yeah, she's accomplished so much she basically runs a multimillion dollar company, but she doesn't have kids or a family so how can she possibly be fulfilled in anything? What has she done in her life that she can be proud of? It's the same shit that's been heaped upon people like Justice Kagan. And if you don't remember that, well, that's not because that shit didn't happen.
    I think you need to watch the movie again because nobody is doing any of this in it

    Her sister literally told her she was gonna have kids herself despite not wanting to.

    Literally while she's getting a divorce

    And that's literally the only person who mentions it. And it is literally the only time in the movie it is brought up. And the movie literally never touches on it again.

    Other than the fact that you're wrong on this point (see above), how many times does a movie have to unaccountedly force a gender-coded message upon a character (and the audience) for it to be a problem? Is there a threshold or quota? If so, what's the number? Is there a formula relative to the running time? Give us the deets, brosef.

  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    Atomika wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Alphagaia wrote: »
    Family always has been a recurring theme between all jpmovies. In JP Grant started out hating kids and ends up finding a soft spot for them. In LW Malcolm was divorced and bonded with his stowaway kid that needed attention. In JP3 the Kirby's were divorced but bonded together to safe their kid and fall back into love. In JW it happened to be a female character running with the theme on their own and now its (part) of the reason the movie portrayal of this is sexist?

    I get the heels are a problem, but come on, people. It's an oversight that should have been addressed, but I would call it bad writing, not sexism.


    It's mostly all about JP1, because this movie was trying to recreate that feeling, without the director knowing anything about why Spielberg did what he did. The difference is that Grant wasn't treated as somehow incomplete in his life, he wasn't treated as if he had made all of the wrong decisions in his life, his priorities in life just changed due to what happened in the movie. Everyone in JW is treating Claire like a freak because apparently yeah, she's accomplished so much she basically runs a multimillion dollar company, but she doesn't have kids or a family so how can she possibly be fulfilled in anything? What has she done in her life that she can be proud of? It's the same shit that's been heaped upon people like Justice Kagan. And if you don't remember that, well, that's not because that shit didn't happen.
    I think you need to watch the movie again because nobody is doing any of this in it

    Her sister literally told her she was gonna have kids herself despite not wanting to.

    Literally while she's getting a divorce

    And that's literally the only person who mentions it. And it is literally the only time in the movie it is brought up. And the movie literally never touches on it again.

    Other than the fact that you're wrong on this point (see above), how many times does a movie have to unaccountedly force a gender-coded message upon a character (and the audience) for it to be a problem? Is there a threshold or quota? If so, what's the number? Is there a formula relative to the running time? Give us the deets, brosef.

    Hey, how about calm down? It's not sexist to bring up something one time. It's not like it was a central theme of the movie. The movie never brings it up again, no Owen does not bring it up. Her subordinates do not bring it up, and her boss does not bring it up, either. They bring up her family, and that it wasn't right to pawn them off on someone else. They do not bring up how she totes has to have kids because she's got ovaries. You are seeing sexism here where there is no sexism. I've already said there are absolutely problematic things happening in the movie with her character, but this is not one of them.

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
    AlphagaiaFrankiedarling
  • AtomikaAtomika Brought to you by Technicolor™ Registered User regular
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Alphagaia wrote: »
    Family always has been a recurring theme between all jpmovies. In JP Grant started out hating kids and ends up finding a soft spot for them. In LW Malcolm was divorced and bonded with his stowaway kid that needed attention. In JP3 the Kirby's were divorced but bonded together to safe their kid and fall back into love. In JW it happened to be a female character running with the theme on their own and now its (part) of the reason the movie portrayal of this is sexist?

    I get the heels are a problem, but come on, people. It's an oversight that should have been addressed, but I would call it bad writing, not sexism.


    It's mostly all about JP1, because this movie was trying to recreate that feeling, without the director knowing anything about why Spielberg did what he did. The difference is that Grant wasn't treated as somehow incomplete in his life, he wasn't treated as if he had made all of the wrong decisions in his life, his priorities in life just changed due to what happened in the movie. Everyone in JW is treating Claire like a freak because apparently yeah, she's accomplished so much she basically runs a multimillion dollar company, but she doesn't have kids or a family so how can she possibly be fulfilled in anything? What has she done in her life that she can be proud of? It's the same shit that's been heaped upon people like Justice Kagan. And if you don't remember that, well, that's not because that shit didn't happen.
    I think you need to watch the movie again because nobody is doing any of this in it

    Her sister literally told her she was gonna have kids herself despite not wanting to.

    Literally while she's getting a divorce

    And that's literally the only person who mentions it. And it is literally the only time in the movie it is brought up. And the movie literally never touches on it again.

    Other than the fact that you're wrong on this point (see above), how many times does a movie have to unaccountedly force a gender-coded message upon a character (and the audience) for it to be a problem? Is there a threshold or quota? If so, what's the number? Is there a formula relative to the running time? Give us the deets, brosef.

    Hey, how about calm down? It's not sexist to bring up something one time. It's not like it was a central theme of the movie. The movie never brings it up again, no Owen does not bring it up. Her subordinates do not bring it up, and her boss does not bring it up, either. They bring up her family, and that it wasn't right to pawn them off on someone else. They do not bring up how she totes has to have kids because she's got ovaries. You are seeing sexism here where there is no sexism. I've already said there are absolutely problematic things happening in the movie with her character, but this is not one of them.

    You're being quite the absolutist here with little to leverage with.

    There are MULTIPLE instances of sexist themes within this film. People here have pointed them out to you several times. Much like those who think the Confederate flag isn't a symbol of racism and sedition, disagreement with consensus with that doesn't mean you win the argument, and gaslighting your opponent is what jerks do, so don't make a habit of it.

    Howard's treatment at the hands of her sister is sexist. Howard's treatment by Owen is sexist. Howard's treatment by her nephews is sexist. The script's treatment of Zara is cruel and unusual and disproportionate, supporting arguments of sexism. Jake Johnson's character is obliviously chauvinist.


    You're allowed to disagree, but you're not allowed to gaslight or insist, especially without supporting arguments. Be cool, yo.

  • VariableVariable Mouth Congress Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    edited July 2015
    this is fascinating as someone who hasn't seen it

    was her not having kids brought up as an issue by other people or not?

    edit - and atomika I don't see other instances of sexism as making it okay to make things up about issues in the film? I also don't find a blanket 'film x is sexist, film y is not' as useful, much more helpful to everyone to talk about the things that are sexist within a work. so there's no quota, there are simply issues. if one issue (multiple people saying she should have kids or she is a failure in some way, since she's a woman) isn't actually there it oughtn't be included in complaints.

    but again I'm fascinated to see a back and forth and actually not know whether this thing happened or not.

    Variable on
    BNet-Vari#1998 | Switch-SW 6960 6688 8388 | Steam | Twitch
  • VariableVariable Mouth Congress Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    I can't edit because forum is crapping itself but I don't mean to say atomika is making things up at all, to be clear, just that if that's not actually an issue the fact that there are other issues doesn't mean it's okay to mention one that isn't really there

    BNet-Vari#1998 | Switch-SW 6960 6688 8388 | Steam | Twitch
Sign In or Register to comment.