I don't normally post about anime here since that's really what the SE++ thread is for, but I started "BNA: Brand New Animal" last Friday with almost no expectations (other than that the same creators made the excellent Little Witch Academia) and ended up binge watching all twelve episodes that night. Like LWA, it doesn't have any of what I like to call "toxic anime bullshit" (stuff like sexual objectification of the female characters or creepy comments from male protagonists).
In this setting there are people called beastmen who can switch between human and humanoid animal forms and have historically been an oppressed minority. They are now celebrating the tenth anniversary of Anima City, a city for only beastmen off the coast of Japan that is the first of its kind in the modern world.
The protagonist, Michiru, is a tanuki-type beastman who comes to the city during the anniversary festival. Only thing is, until a few months ago she was a human. Both she and her friend Nazuna transformed into beastmen for no apparent reason, and Michiru has come to the city both to find a cure that will make her human again and to find out what happened to Nazuna, who last she saw back in Japan was abducted and forced into a van by human men wearing all black. Together with a wolf-type beastman named Shirou who is dedicated to seeking out and thwarting plots against Anima City orchestrated by those who either want to exploit the city or cause it to fail, Michiru investigates her own predicaments while learning about the beastmen, Anima City, and the problems the city and its people face.
It's a fast-paced twelve episode series that surprised me very often.
Like LWA, it doesn't have any of what I like to call "toxic anime bullshit" (stuff like sexual objectification of the female characters or creepy comments from male protagonists).
I think I understand my grandparents now when they never had anything above basic cable.
"Why would I need that many channels?"
AppleTV+'s layout is full of new aspiring channel add-ons, more than Amazon. There's this new Matt Berry show called Year of the Rabbit which I saw in one of the tiles, but it's behind this channel with a name that begins with "T" and I can't be bothered to look it up on my phone right now and the only other thing they had on this channel was the original UK Office, and looks to be one of these channels that thinks if it just has non-US shows it will be more sophisticated or something. For 8 bucks a month.
I have a free year of AppleTV+ and I still haven't watched anything they've made because there's just nothing there I care about. I think about watching that Greyhound WWII movie with Bosom Buddy or Mac's videogame dramedy show, but I'd rather watch Cobra Kai again.
I don't normally post about anime here since that's really what the SE++ thread is for, but I started "BNA: Brand New Animal" last Friday with almost no expectations (other than that the same creators made the excellent Little Witch Academia) and ended up binge watching all twelve episodes that night. Like LWA, it doesn't have any of what I like to call "toxic anime bullshit" (stuff like sexual objectification of the female characters or creepy comments from male protagonists).
In this setting there are people called beastmen who can switch between human and humanoid animal forms and have historically been an oppressed minority. They are now celebrating the tenth anniversary of Anima City, a city for only beastmen off the coast of Japan that is the first of its kind in the modern world.
The protagonist, Michiru, is a tanuki-type beastman who comes to the city during the anniversary festival. Only thing is, until a few months ago she was a human. Both she and her friend Nazuna transformed into beastmen for no apparent reason, and Michiru has come to the city both to find a cure that will make her human again and to find out what happened to Nazuna, who last she saw back in Japan was abducted and forced into a van by human men wearing all black. Together with a wolf-type beastman named Shirou who is dedicated to seeking out and thwarting plots against Anima City orchestrated by those who either want to exploit the city or cause it to fail, Michiru investigates her own predicaments while learning about the beastmen, Anima City, and the problems the city and its people face.
It's a fast-paced twelve episode series that surprised me very often.
BNA is pretty, and I'm really glad it escapes the male gaze stuff, but the writing is incredibly paint-by-numbers generic anime. Make sure your brain is turned aaall the way off when you watch it.
Part of it was that they used that name overseas and part of it was all new streaming services must have + in them.
ahahahaha
We were chatting via IM today at work about shows and one of my co-workers said they liked Star Trek so I mentioned if they liked TNG they should check out Picard on CBS All Access.
Their response was "Ugh but then I'd have to remember to cancel the free trial and I'd forget and be mad when I got charged ...though I hear Paramount has a pretty good service I might pick that up?"
Which just made me grimace at the thought of another god damned streaming service
BNA is pretty, and I'm really glad it escapes the male gaze stuff, but the writing is incredibly paint-by-numbers generic anime. Make sure your brain is turned aaall the way off when you watch it.
It's a Trigger anime, so really, it's more of a spectacle than anything. Lots of great, stylish animation.
Did any of you fuckers sit down and watch the fucking thing?
The government's not going to fucking black bag you if you do, but if we're going to tear down a bunch of shit let's pretend that we actually know what we're talking about.
"I saw some clips of this movie called (Cuties/Kids/Eraserhead) that director should be dragged to a government black site right away"
I have actually, and you know what? It's mediocre as hell. It's so ham fisted and cliched that without this controversy there would be almost no one talking about it. The majority of the run time is spent with the protagonist acting out against the conservative beliefs of her upbringing, which is just so damn original and uplifting. In the end she actually breaks down and realizes the error of her ways, cuts ties with her new friends and find that yes her body is shameful and she should never reveal herself or be empowered by her own body. It's not a bad movie, but it is also not very good. Or maybe it is if your an 11 year old French Muslim girl, which I am not.
The thing is, most of the dance scenes are not too terrible. They are real borderline but could be dismissed as kids exploring what it means to be sexual. Especially in the context of the, apparently unknown to me, fact that most of the world sexualizes girls that young all the time at literally every opportunity, even with food somehow. At least according to the people in the thread. So these girls acting on such an over the top manor is not outside of the believable since 11 year olds are still basically incapable of subtlety and nuance.
However all of this falls apart in two scenes. About 3/4 of the way through the girls make a dance video to submit to be in the TV show. Not only are the dance moves incredibly sexually explicit, the scene is shot exactly like a porn would be. Every hip swing, every rump shake, every set of spread legs is focused center screen and close up. Then at the end of the movie, when they finally get their chance, they do the same but much worse. And the scene is once again shot like a porn. These girls are in skin tight tops, incredibly short shorts that are also skin tight, so you can see everything. They spread their legs and thrust their crotch at you, touch themselves erotically, just do all the stuff a stripper would basically.
So I guess the question is, do those two scenes, compromising maybe 5% of the total runtime spoil they movie? Absolutely. I understand what the director was going for, but her reach far exceeded her grasp. She clearly lacked the talent to accurately portray the problematic treatment of young girls, without treating those girls the way she is preaching against.
All of you defending it should watch it. Actually here, let me help you out just watch this scene. Play it on your computer at work, fun for the whole family. https://youtu.be/83f5g8m2gl4
furlion on
Gamertag: KL Retribution
PSN:Furlion
+4
Options
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
edited September 2020
Some people apparently manage to lead far more sheltered lives than I ever would have expected in the information age.
Netflix recently put out The Babysitter: Killer Queen, a sequel to The Babysitter which was a very pleasant surprise 3 years ago. It doesn't really live up to the original at all while attempting to rehash most of it but with terrible writing and everything dialed up to an unpleasant degree. Very disappointing, unfortunately.
Ketar on
+4
Options
lwt1973King of ThievesSyndicationRegistered Userregular
Some people apparently manage to lead far more sheltered lives than I ever would have expected in the information age.
Netflix recently put out The Babysitter: Killer Queen, a sequel to The Babysitter which was a very pleasant surprise 3 years ago. It doesn't really live up to the original at all while attempting to rehash most of it but with terrible writing and everything dialed up to an unpleasant degree. Very disappointing, unfortunately.
McG directed both which means he got some of that delicious Netflix money for this one. It was ok but the first was so much better overall.
"He's sulking in his tent like Achilles! It's the Iliad?...from Homer?! READ A BOOK!!" -Handy
+1
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
Eesh. FYI, don't actually play that at work unless you want a real fast visit from your boss (it didn't happen to me but seriously, don't watch it at work).
Nothing says "this is art, it's justified!" like multiple lingering creepshots of kid's crotches, it's like that was shot by an even creepier Michael Bay.
I was expecting an original song, so when the music for "Word Up" started I was enthralled.
I had no idea what I'd been missing.
Thank you for posting this. I had never heard of this show at all so comments like this grab my attention. We started a few days ago and are totally in love with it to the point we want to binge it but won't so that it will last longer. It's nice to have new and positive TV to watch during a year like this.
I think I understand my grandparents now when they never had anything above basic cable.
"Why would I need that many channels?"
Except now they cost more per channel.
And they still can't deliver the dream of "Can actually find the thing you want".
Yeah streaming is just a mess right now. I just dealt with VRV and their BS this weekend. So I guess if you subscribe to Premium Crunchyroll that is part of VRV but doesn't get you access to VRV. Instead you need to cancel Crunchyroll and subscribe to VRV, so you get the same Crunchyroll as before but now you have access to VRV.
They can re-brand all they want, in the next 5 some years we'll see a bunch of them die off. A quick look online suggests 3-4 services per household. Ignoring Amazon, since it's bundled, you have heavy hitters like Netflix, Disney+, Apple+, Hulu, and HBOMax. That's 5 right there. Peacock, Paramount, VRV, YoutubeTV, etc just don't seem to have a chance. And I'm not sure if any of this is taking Sling or HuluLive into account.
Some people apparently manage to lead far more sheltered lives than I ever would have expected in the information age.
Netflix recently put out The Babysitter: Killer Queen, a sequel to The Babysitter which was a very pleasant surprise 3 years ago. It doesn't really live up to the original at all while attempting to rehash most of it but with terrible writing and everything dialed up to an unpleasant degree. Very disappointing, unfortunately.
McG directed both which means he got some of that delicious Netflix money for this one. It was ok but the first was so much better overall.
I actually liked the second one a lot more. It just seemed to incorporate a bit more style.
Granted, I don't remember a ton about the original.
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
McG also directed that Netflix Rim of the World movie that wasn't good, and he seems to operate on a on/off cycle (except This Means War and 3 Days to Kill were swapped), so Babysitter 2 should be good. Should.
I didn't even know Babysitter 2 was coming out until last week.
0
Options
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
I think I understand my grandparents now when they never had anything above basic cable.
"Why would I need that many channels?"
Except now they cost more per channel.
And they still can't deliver the dream of "Can actually find the thing you want".
Yeah streaming is just a mess right now. I just dealt with VRV and their BS this weekend. So I guess if you subscribe to Premium Crunchyroll that is part of VRV but doesn't get you access to VRV. Instead you need to cancel Crunchyroll and subscribe to VRV, so you get the same Crunchyroll as before but now you have access to VRV.
They can re-brand all they want, in the next 5 some years we'll see a bunch of them die off. A quick look online suggests 3-4 services per household. Ignoring Amazon, since it's bundled, you have heavy hitters like Netflix, Disney+, Apple+, Hulu, and HBOMax. That's 5 right there. Peacock, Paramount, VRV, YoutubeTV, etc just don't seem to have a chance. And I'm not sure if any of this is taking Sling or HuluLive into account.
One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong.
What's so galling about the situation is how many platforms are selling themselves with a single show. I'm not a big fan of the way Netflix handles shows, but at least they have tons of options in a bunch of different genres. Amazon has less original content, or maybe just harder to find original content, but free shipping is its own reward. HBO is as far down the list as I'm willing to go. I subbed for GoT, stuck around for the 2 or 3 shows that are running at any given time. It definitely feels more like a premium channel rather than a streaming service, though. But CBS should just be called Picard and Disney+ should be marketed as a babysitting service.
My mother called me just last week to explain what the hell was going on with her HBO. She literally has a cable package with HBO for like 14.99 a month though the cable box. She used to have HBO Now I think, which was the streaming app you got for having an actual HBO account.
Now she's trying to figure out why she can't get HBO MAX, which had something she wanted to see, when she already paid for HBO.
I honestly couldn't tell her what to HBO apps actually connect where.
Some people apparently manage to lead far more sheltered lives than I ever would have expected in the information age.
Netflix recently put out The Babysitter: Killer Queen, a sequel to The Babysitter which was a very pleasant surprise 3 years ago. It doesn't really live up to the original at all while attempting to rehash most of it but with terrible writing and everything dialed up to an unpleasant degree. Very disappointing, unfortunately.
I liked it well enough, it had some good deaths.
The original was better, though, as with Happy Death Day.
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Michael Mcintyre's new netflix special is a solid very good. It's actually refreshing in not being full of current event stuff or angry rantings. I've always liked the guy since I saw him on Top Gear and he walks the line the right way between enjoyable and irritating, and I feel like he should have taken off more but James Corden's black hole of boring unfunny sucked away Mcintyre's opportunities.
His bits about being in Asia and your first internet password are solid lasting chuckles.
My mother called me just last week to explain what the hell was going on with her HBO. She literally has a cable package with HBO for like 14.99 a month though the cable box. She used to have HBO Now I think, which was the streaming app you got for having an actual HBO account.
Now she's trying to figure out why she can't get HBO MAX, which had something she wanted to see, when she already paid for HBO.
I honestly couldn't tell her what to HBO apps actually connect where.
If she was using HBO's streaming service as part of her subscription through her cable provider she would have been using HBO Go, which I think has shut down (I couldnt access it on my PS4 anyway). She should be able to just go to hbomax.com and log in with her cable provider info and then set up whatever app/device shes trying to watch it through however it prompts you (probably a code you have to enter into a website).
I think those are the steps I went through anyway. I remember having to make a HBO Max profile on the website before I could log in on my device.
It'd have made too much sense if they just rolled existing accounts into the HBO Max framework.
Did any of you fuckers sit down and watch the fucking thing?
The government's not going to fucking black bag you if you do, but if we're going to tear down a bunch of shit let's pretend that we actually know what we're talking about.
"I saw some clips of this movie called (Cuties/Kids/Eraserhead) that director should be dragged to a government black site right away"
I have actually, and you know what? It's mediocre as hell. It's so ham fisted and cliched that without this controversy there would be almost no one talking about it. The majority of the run time is spent with the protagonist acting out against the conservative beliefs of her upbringing, which is just so damn original and uplifting. In the end she actually breaks down and realizes the error of her ways, cuts ties with her new friends and find that yes her body is shameful and she should never reveal herself or be empowered by her own body. It's not a bad movie, but it is also not very good. Or maybe it is if your an 11 year old French Muslim girl, which I am not.
The thing is, most of the dance scenes are not too terrible. They are real borderline but could be dismissed as kids exploring what it means to be sexual. Especially in the context of the, apparently unknown to me, fact that most of the world sexualizes girls that young all the time at literally every opportunity, even with food somehow. At least according to the people in the thread. So these girls acting on such an over the top manor is not outside of the believable since 11 year olds are still basically incapable of subtlety and nuance.
However all of this falls apart in two scenes. About 3/4 of the way through the girls make a dance video to submit to be in the TV show. Not only are the dance moves incredibly sexually explicit, the scene is shot exactly like a porn would be. Every hip swing, every rump shake, every set of spread legs is focused center screen and close up. Then at the end of the movie, when they finally get their chance, they do the same but much worse. And the scene is once again shot like a porn. These girls are in skin tight tops, incredibly short shorts that are also skin tight, so you can see everything. They spread their legs and thrust their crotch at you, touch themselves erotically, just do all the stuff a stripper would basically.
So I guess the question is, do those two scenes, compromising maybe 5% of the total runtime spoil they movie? Absolutely. I understand what the director was going for, but her reach far exceeded her grasp. She clearly lacked the talent to accurately portray the problematic treatment of young girls, without treating those girls the way she is preaching against.
All of you defending it should watch it. Actually here, let me help you out just watch this scene. Play it on your computer at work, fun for the whole family. https://youtu.be/83f5g8m2gl4
Right, and because the film is about how media sexualizes women from a very young age... it can't make its point?
Like, you're calling out two scenes where there's a creepy, leering male gaze present. Two scenes out of the whole film. Maybe consider that... it's intentional that only those two scenes are like that?
If the whole film was like that, then maybe I'd be understanding of the naysayers. But you might as well tell me that violence has no place in a film about the horrors of violence.
What's so galling about the situation is how many platforms are selling themselves with a single show. I'm not a big fan of the way Netflix handles shows, but at least they have tons of options in a bunch of different genres. Amazon has less original content, or maybe just harder to find original content, but free shipping is its own reward. HBO is as far down the list as I'm willing to go. I subbed for GoT, stuck around for the 2 or 3 shows that are running at any given time. It definitely feels more like a premium channel rather than a streaming service, though. But CBS should just be called Picard and Disney+ should be marketed as a babysitting service.
Disney+ makes perfect sense in that Disney just owns a fuckton of content. That's what you are paying for access to. This is especially true when they own both Marvel and Star Wars.
Like, sure, they've got original content too. But I think everyone knows that the point of Disney+ is that you are paying for access to their vault of stuff. It's an archive. A currently really really bad archive.
I saw The Babysitter:Killer Queen and it was... Fun. It wasn't horror, because you could see most of the story beats coming a mile away. However it was a fun to watch in a blood, guts and gore is funny kind of way. Robbie Amell was a standout, he plays a homicidal psycho that is permanently shirtless, but you can't help but like him. He is a new take on the jerk jock villain and Robbie makes it work. His:
last line being: I am not even mad, Bro! was the best line of the movie for me and completely in character.
Also:
That two of the new cult members try to back out after the Hero as killed three other members of the returners. Like that should be more of trope in these kinds of things. Minions deciding that shit wasn't worth dying for and bailing. Instead of charging after hero by running over minion corpse 45 and 46.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
+2
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
I saw The Babysitter:Killer Queen and it was... Fun. It wasn't horror, because you could see most of the story beats coming a mile away. However it was a fun to watch in a blood, guts and gore is funny kind of way. Robbie Amell was a standout, he plays a homicidal psycho that is permanently shirtless, but you can't help but like him. He is a new take on the jerk jock villain and Robbie makes it work. His:
last line being: I am not even mad, Bro! was the best line of the movie for me and completely in character.
Also:
That two of the new cult members try to back out after the Hero as killed three other members of the returners. Like that should be more of trope in these kinds of things. Minions deciding that shit wasn't worth dying for and bailing. Instead of charging after hero by running over minion corpse 45 and 46.
I'm assuming you saw the original that this was a sequel to?
I think this is the rare sequel that actually makes the original better.
Did any of you fuckers sit down and watch the fucking thing?
The government's not going to fucking black bag you if you do, but if we're going to tear down a bunch of shit let's pretend that we actually know what we're talking about.
"I saw some clips of this movie called (Cuties/Kids/Eraserhead) that director should be dragged to a government black site right away"
I have actually, and you know what? It's mediocre as hell. It's so ham fisted and cliched that without this controversy there would be almost no one talking about it. The majority of the run time is spent with the protagonist acting out against the conservative beliefs of her upbringing, which is just so damn original and uplifting. In the end she actually breaks down and realizes the error of her ways, cuts ties with her new friends and find that yes her body is shameful and she should never reveal herself or be empowered by her own body. It's not a bad movie, but it is also not very good. Or maybe it is if your an 11 year old French Muslim girl, which I am not.
The thing is, most of the dance scenes are not too terrible. They are real borderline but could be dismissed as kids exploring what it means to be sexual. Especially in the context of the, apparently unknown to me, fact that most of the world sexualizes girls that young all the time at literally every opportunity, even with food somehow. At least according to the people in the thread. So these girls acting on such an over the top manor is not outside of the believable since 11 year olds are still basically incapable of subtlety and nuance.
However all of this falls apart in two scenes. About 3/4 of the way through the girls make a dance video to submit to be in the TV show. Not only are the dance moves incredibly sexually explicit, the scene is shot exactly like a porn would be. Every hip swing, every rump shake, every set of spread legs is focused center screen and close up. Then at the end of the movie, when they finally get their chance, they do the same but much worse. And the scene is once again shot like a porn. These girls are in skin tight tops, incredibly short shorts that are also skin tight, so you can see everything. They spread their legs and thrust their crotch at you, touch themselves erotically, just do all the stuff a stripper would basically.
So I guess the question is, do those two scenes, compromising maybe 5% of the total runtime spoil they movie? Absolutely. I understand what the director was going for, but her reach far exceeded her grasp. She clearly lacked the talent to accurately portray the problematic treatment of young girls, without treating those girls the way she is preaching against.
All of you defending it should watch it. Actually here, let me help you out just watch this scene. Play it on your computer at work, fun for the whole family. https://youtu.be/83f5g8m2gl4
Right, and because the film is about how media sexualizes women from a very young age... it can't make its point?
Like, you're calling out two scenes where there's a creepy, leering male gaze present. Two scenes out of the whole film. Maybe consider that... it's intentional that only those two scenes are like that?
If the whole film was like that, then maybe I'd be understanding of the naysayers. But you might as well tell me that violence has no place in a film about the horrors of violence.
I'm still not sure what to think about the whole thing. But from what I understand, the problem people have is that its actually doing the thing that is "abhorrent". Like, we don't actually murder people when trying to portray it in a movie. Its faked. For good reason, right? I think thats the reason for the outrage here. Like, some people find it so bad, that the act of actually doing it with real minors on screen is the problem. Re-enacting it for real is like actually doing it. Saying its for a film doesn't make it any more ok than killing someone and saying its for a film.
Again, I get their viewpoint, not sure how I feel about it still.
Did any of you fuckers sit down and watch the fucking thing?
The government's not going to fucking black bag you if you do, but if we're going to tear down a bunch of shit let's pretend that we actually know what we're talking about.
"I saw some clips of this movie called (Cuties/Kids/Eraserhead) that director should be dragged to a government black site right away"
I have actually, and you know what? It's mediocre as hell. It's so ham fisted and cliched that without this controversy there would be almost no one talking about it. The majority of the run time is spent with the protagonist acting out against the conservative beliefs of her upbringing, which is just so damn original and uplifting. In the end she actually breaks down and realizes the error of her ways, cuts ties with her new friends and find that yes her body is shameful and she should never reveal herself or be empowered by her own body. It's not a bad movie, but it is also not very good. Or maybe it is if your an 11 year old French Muslim girl, which I am not.
The thing is, most of the dance scenes are not too terrible. They are real borderline but could be dismissed as kids exploring what it means to be sexual. Especially in the context of the, apparently unknown to me, fact that most of the world sexualizes girls that young all the time at literally every opportunity, even with food somehow. At least according to the people in the thread. So these girls acting on such an over the top manor is not outside of the believable since 11 year olds are still basically incapable of subtlety and nuance.
However all of this falls apart in two scenes. About 3/4 of the way through the girls make a dance video to submit to be in the TV show. Not only are the dance moves incredibly sexually explicit, the scene is shot exactly like a porn would be. Every hip swing, every rump shake, every set of spread legs is focused center screen and close up. Then at the end of the movie, when they finally get their chance, they do the same but much worse. And the scene is once again shot like a porn. These girls are in skin tight tops, incredibly short shorts that are also skin tight, so you can see everything. They spread their legs and thrust their crotch at you, touch themselves erotically, just do all the stuff a stripper would basically.
So I guess the question is, do those two scenes, compromising maybe 5% of the total runtime spoil they movie? Absolutely. I understand what the director was going for, but her reach far exceeded her grasp. She clearly lacked the talent to accurately portray the problematic treatment of young girls, without treating those girls the way she is preaching against.
All of you defending it should watch it. Actually here, let me help you out just watch this scene. Play it on your computer at work, fun for the whole family. https://youtu.be/83f5g8m2gl4
That looks like porn to you? Really? MTV has been showing worse than that in music videos since at least 1999. I'm not saying that 90 second clip isn't allowed to make you uncomfortable, but your insistence that if is beyond the pale and borderline pornography just shows that 1) you are apparently not aware of major media culture and 2) how much major media culture needs to be called out
There's nothing shocking in that video except the age of the actresses and that's the problem
RingoHe/Hima distinct lack of substanceRegistered Userregular
edited September 2020
Also I just watched the first episode of The Goes Wrong Show and couldn't breathe I was laughing so hard. The premise is basically, "What if everything that goes wrong during the course of a stage production goes wrong on the same night?"
It's on Amazon and if you have any affinity for stage theater, either as participant or audience, you'll probably get a kick out of it. So many good memories for me of people having the unexpected happen and just trying their damnedest to keep to the script
Again, it's not like this film just came out. It was shown at Sundance -where it won Best Director! - and it was in European cinemas for a month before Netflix released it. How many times now have I said, hey, isn't it weird how no film critic has made any of these complaints being passed around about the film?
I guess all film critics are part of the child pedo sex rings that plague the world or something.
Did any of you fuckers sit down and watch the fucking thing?
The government's not going to fucking black bag you if you do, but if we're going to tear down a bunch of shit let's pretend that we actually know what we're talking about.
"I saw some clips of this movie called (Cuties/Kids/Eraserhead) that director should be dragged to a government black site right away"
I have actually, and you know what? It's mediocre as hell. It's so ham fisted and cliched that without this controversy there would be almost no one talking about it. The majority of the run time is spent with the protagonist acting out against the conservative beliefs of her upbringing, which is just so damn original and uplifting. In the end she actually breaks down and realizes the error of her ways, cuts ties with her new friends and find that yes her body is shameful and she should never reveal herself or be empowered by her own body. It's not a bad movie, but it is also not very good. Or maybe it is if your an 11 year old French Muslim girl, which I am not.
The thing is, most of the dance scenes are not too terrible. They are real borderline but could be dismissed as kids exploring what it means to be sexual. Especially in the context of the, apparently unknown to me, fact that most of the world sexualizes girls that young all the time at literally every opportunity, even with food somehow. At least according to the people in the thread. So these girls acting on such an over the top manor is not outside of the believable since 11 year olds are still basically incapable of subtlety and nuance.
However all of this falls apart in two scenes. About 3/4 of the way through the girls make a dance video to submit to be in the TV show. Not only are the dance moves incredibly sexually explicit, the scene is shot exactly like a porn would be. Every hip swing, every rump shake, every set of spread legs is focused center screen and close up. Then at the end of the movie, when they finally get their chance, they do the same but much worse. And the scene is once again shot like a porn. These girls are in skin tight tops, incredibly short shorts that are also skin tight, so you can see everything. They spread their legs and thrust their crotch at you, touch themselves erotically, just do all the stuff a stripper would basically.
So I guess the question is, do those two scenes, compromising maybe 5% of the total runtime spoil they movie? Absolutely. I understand what the director was going for, but her reach far exceeded her grasp. She clearly lacked the talent to accurately portray the problematic treatment of young girls, without treating those girls the way she is preaching against.
All of you defending it should watch it. Actually here, let me help you out just watch this scene. Play it on your computer at work, fun for the whole family. https://youtu.be/83f5g8m2gl4
Right, and because the film is about how media sexualizes women from a very young age... it can't make its point?
Like, you're calling out two scenes where there's a creepy, leering male gaze present. Two scenes out of the whole film. Maybe consider that... it's intentional that only those two scenes are like that?
If the whole film was like that, then maybe I'd be understanding of the naysayers. But you might as well tell me that violence has no place in a film about the horrors of violence.
I think a problem here is that it's generally assumed that the camera is under the director's control. What a character says and does reflects on the character, and could be something that the director disagrees strongly with, but the camera is not a diegetic element. If a film goes soft-focus on the woman that just walked in, slowly panning up from her feet, while the soundtrack switches to light jazz, that's a statement that the director has chosen to make; none of those elements are present within the reality of the filmed world.
So, what does it mean when the camera goes all pervy? That's understood to be a statement from the director that you should find this sexually titillating. Does it actually mean that here? Apparently not, but there's a completely different language for "what the camera is focusing on isn't the director's statement" that the film isn't using. For example, you could have the camera actually be a diegetic object. The clip starts out with what appears to be a kid hitting a button on a camera, which is a good start, but then it just keeps moving the camera professionally, which severely damages the statement. (If the girls set a camera down and started dancing, a diegetic camera would not move.) Having the film switch to camcorder/phone quality at that point, or otherwise making it look unprofessional, or introducing the camera operator, or switching to a non-pervy camera for some shots are also useful elements that do not appear to be present. Or, you could cut back to having it displayed on a monitor, with someone else watching it to act as commentary. (If the objective is to show "girls trying to be sexy, even though that's a bad idea", then my first suggestion would be the editing session the girls do after shooting the video to allow for extra character building.) As it stands, the camera is pervy, and I don't see anything that shows the camera's viewpoint isn't the director's viewpoint.
This is one scene taken out of context from the film - and I just realized the reason why I feel like I'm repeating myself is because this is the streaming thread, not the movies thread.
Did any of you fuckers sit down and watch the fucking thing?
The government's not going to fucking black bag you if you do, but if we're going to tear down a bunch of shit let's pretend that we actually know what we're talking about.
"I saw some clips of this movie called (Cuties/Kids/Eraserhead) that director should be dragged to a government black site right away"
I have actually, and you know what? It's mediocre as hell. It's so ham fisted and cliched that without this controversy there would be almost no one talking about it. The majority of the run time is spent with the protagonist acting out against the conservative beliefs of her upbringing, which is just so damn original and uplifting. In the end she actually breaks down and realizes the error of her ways, cuts ties with her new friends and find that yes her body is shameful and she should never reveal herself or be empowered by her own body. It's not a bad movie, but it is also not very good. Or maybe it is if your an 11 year old French Muslim girl, which I am not.
The thing is, most of the dance scenes are not too terrible. They are real borderline but could be dismissed as kids exploring what it means to be sexual. Especially in the context of the, apparently unknown to me, fact that most of the world sexualizes girls that young all the time at literally every opportunity, even with food somehow. At least according to the people in the thread. So these girls acting on such an over the top manor is not outside of the believable since 11 year olds are still basically incapable of subtlety and nuance.
However all of this falls apart in two scenes. About 3/4 of the way through the girls make a dance video to submit to be in the TV show. Not only are the dance moves incredibly sexually explicit, the scene is shot exactly like a porn would be. Every hip swing, every rump shake, every set of spread legs is focused center screen and close up. Then at the end of the movie, when they finally get their chance, they do the same but much worse. And the scene is once again shot like a porn. These girls are in skin tight tops, incredibly short shorts that are also skin tight, so you can see everything. They spread their legs and thrust their crotch at you, touch themselves erotically, just do all the stuff a stripper would basically.
So I guess the question is, do those two scenes, compromising maybe 5% of the total runtime spoil they movie? Absolutely. I understand what the director was going for, but her reach far exceeded her grasp. She clearly lacked the talent to accurately portray the problematic treatment of young girls, without treating those girls the way she is preaching against.
All of you defending it should watch it. Actually here, let me help you out just watch this scene. Play it on your computer at work, fun for the whole family. https://youtu.be/83f5g8m2gl4
Right, and because the film is about how media sexualizes women from a very young age... it can't make its point?
Like, you're calling out two scenes where there's a creepy, leering male gaze present. Two scenes out of the whole film. Maybe consider that... it's intentional that only those two scenes are like that?
If the whole film was like that, then maybe I'd be understanding of the naysayers. But you might as well tell me that violence has no place in a film about the horrors of violence.
I think a problem here is that it's generally assumed that the camera is under the director's control. What a character says and does reflects on the character, and could be something that the director disagrees strongly with, but the camera is not a diegetic element. If a film goes soft-focus on the woman that just walked in, slowly panning up from her feet, while the soundtrack switches to light jazz, that's a statement that the director has chosen to make; none of those elements are present within the reality of the filmed world.
So, what does it mean when the camera goes all pervy? That's understood to be a statement from the director that you should find this sexually titillating. Does it actually mean that here? Apparently not, but there's a completely different language for "what the camera is focusing on isn't the director's statement" that the film isn't using. For example, you could have the camera actually be a diegetic object. The clip starts out with what appears to be a kid hitting a button on a camera, which is a good start, but then it just keeps moving the camera professionally, which severely damages the statement. (If the girls set a camera down and started dancing, a diegetic camera would not move.) Having the film switch to camcorder/phone quality at that point, or otherwise making it look unprofessional, or introducing the camera operator, or switching to a non-pervy camera for some shots are also useful elements that do not appear to be present. Or, you could cut back to having it displayed on a monitor, with someone else watching it to act as commentary. (If the objective is to show "girls trying to be sexy, even though that's a bad idea", then my first suggestion would be the editing session the girls do after shooting the video to allow for extra character building.) As it stands, the camera is pervy, and I don't see anything that shows the camera's viewpoint isn't the director's viewpoint.
Eh. The director can definitely be trying to introduce dissonance between what the direction is conveying and what is acceptable.
And if it's a film-within-a-film then it would be meant to convey how the character's making that film feel.
0
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
It is a French coming-of-age film told from the perspective of an ethnic minority. So viewing it through your own particular cultural lens and then judging it as, point blank, child exploitation and pornography is hyperbolic given that clip is the worst thing you can find. Something which you would not find out of place on TikTok or Youtube today, or on Dance Moms or MTV for the past decade+.
I saw the movie and the "child exploitation" angle (if you can call it that) is very clearly being used in the film to convey a criticism of modern (French) culture and how it is translated and consumed by an immigrant ethnic minority child.
I don't recall the last time anything like this popped up in these threads on D&D, and there have been tons and tons of films made in the past several years which are in a very similar vein which didn't create this particular type of vitriol based almost entirely on a stupid fucking marketing strategy. Eighth Grade, for example, has an incredibly uncomfortable car scene where an older teenager tries to coerce a young girl into sex, and a pool party scene where clearly underage girls are wearing skimpy bikinis which showed far more skin than in Cuties. Nobody batted an eye at any of that, calling it "honest" and "realistic" and "accurate" to the experience of a young girl in America today.
+2
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
Except the part that is pissing people off is that the "child exploitation" of the message is done via actual child exploitation. If it was a bunch of young adult women doing the same thing, nobody would bat an eye at the movie because they're fucking consenting adults, not a group of 11 year-olds directed by adults hoping to use them to cash in on their bodies.
Using kids for this was inexcusable. The movie has multiple scenes of creep-bait and, just as those kids are not old enough to realize why emulating their hyper-sexed icons is a bad idea, they also have no fucking clue why being filmed emulating those icons is also bad. It's children. It's exploitation. It's child exploitation. It doesn't matter if the film is French or Texan or Martian, exploiting kids is exploiting kids. The cultural origin is irrelevant to the exploitation issue, unless you want to also justify that it's okay for countries to have child sex workers because "that's their culture".
Further, the issue of actual kids emulating this stuff is certainly real and disturbing, but this film is a whole extra level of disturbing because grown adults intentionally had kids displaying this behavior with leering camera shots, then tried to justify it. At least when kids are being dumbshits for Tiktok or whatever, they aren't being actively coached by a creepy-ass professional crew of adults on a damn set.
Considering everything that has down from the #MeToo movement in the last couple of years, it's thoroughly appalling that people can justify using kids this way when it's the exact sort of shit that sets them up to be preyed upon and exploited by people with money and power.
Except the part that is pissing people off is that the "child exploitation" of the message is done via actual child exploitation. If it was a bunch of young adult women doing the same thing, nobody would bat an eye at the movie because they're fucking consenting adults, not a group of 11 year-olds directed by adults hoping to use them to cash in on their bodies.
Using kids for this was inexcusable. The movie has multiple scenes of creep-bait and, just as those kids are not old enough to realize why emulating their hyper-sexed icons is a bad idea, they also have no fucking clue why being filmed emulating those icons is also bad. It's children. It's exploitation. It's child exploitation. It doesn't matter if the film is French or Texan or Martian, exploiting kids is exploiting kids. The cultural origin is irrelevant to the exploitation issue, unless you want to also justify that it's okay for countries to have child sex workers because "that's their culture".
Further, the issue of actual kids emulating this stuff is certainly real and disturbing, but this film is a whole extra level of disturbing because grown adults intentionally had kids displaying this behavior with leering camera shots, then tried to justify it. At least when kids are being dumbshits for Tiktok or whatever, they aren't being actively coached by a creepy-ass professional crew of adults on a damn set.
Considering everything that has down from the #MeToo movement in the last couple of years, it's thoroughly appalling that people can justify using kids this way when it's the exact sort of shit that sets them up to be preyed upon and exploited by people with money and power.
I don't know, I suspect the actresses in question are aware of what the film is about and what the message is. Children aren't stupid.
Posts
In this setting there are people called beastmen who can switch between human and humanoid animal forms and have historically been an oppressed minority. They are now celebrating the tenth anniversary of Anima City, a city for only beastmen off the coast of Japan that is the first of its kind in the modern world.
The protagonist, Michiru, is a tanuki-type beastman who comes to the city during the anniversary festival. Only thing is, until a few months ago she was a human. Both she and her friend Nazuna transformed into beastmen for no apparent reason, and Michiru has come to the city both to find a cure that will make her human again and to find out what happened to Nazuna, who last she saw back in Japan was abducted and forced into a van by human men wearing all black. Together with a wolf-type beastman named Shirou who is dedicated to seeking out and thwarting plots against Anima City orchestrated by those who either want to exploit the city or cause it to fail, Michiru investigates her own predicaments while learning about the beastmen, Anima City, and the problems the city and its people face.
It's a fast-paced twelve episode series that surprised me very often.
Sold.
I think I understand my grandparents now when they never had anything above basic cable.
"Why would I need that many channels?"
AppleTV+'s layout is full of new aspiring channel add-ons, more than Amazon. There's this new Matt Berry show called Year of the Rabbit which I saw in one of the tiles, but it's behind this channel with a name that begins with "T" and I can't be bothered to look it up on my phone right now and the only other thing they had on this channel was the original UK Office, and looks to be one of these channels that thinks if it just has non-US shows it will be more sophisticated or something. For 8 bucks a month.
I have a free year of AppleTV+ and I still haven't watched anything they've made because there's just nothing there I care about. I think about watching that Greyhound WWII movie with Bosom Buddy or Mac's videogame dramedy show, but I'd rather watch Cobra Kai again.
Except now they cost more per channel.
And they still can't deliver the dream of "Can actually find the thing you want".
This intro song fucking slaps.
ahahahaha
We were chatting via IM today at work about shows and one of my co-workers said they liked Star Trek so I mentioned if they liked TNG they should check out Picard on CBS All Access.
Their response was "Ugh but then I'd have to remember to cancel the free trial and I'd forget and be mad when I got charged ...though I hear Paramount has a pretty good service I might pick that up?"
Which just made me grimace at the thought of another god damned streaming service
So now I'm just laughing my ass off
It's a Trigger anime, so really, it's more of a spectacle than anything. Lots of great, stylish animation.
I have actually, and you know what? It's mediocre as hell. It's so ham fisted and cliched that without this controversy there would be almost no one talking about it. The majority of the run time is spent with the protagonist acting out against the conservative beliefs of her upbringing, which is just so damn original and uplifting. In the end she actually breaks down and realizes the error of her ways, cuts ties with her new friends and find that yes her body is shameful and she should never reveal herself or be empowered by her own body. It's not a bad movie, but it is also not very good. Or maybe it is if your an 11 year old French Muslim girl, which I am not.
The thing is, most of the dance scenes are not too terrible. They are real borderline but could be dismissed as kids exploring what it means to be sexual. Especially in the context of the, apparently unknown to me, fact that most of the world sexualizes girls that young all the time at literally every opportunity, even with food somehow. At least according to the people in the thread. So these girls acting on such an over the top manor is not outside of the believable since 11 year olds are still basically incapable of subtlety and nuance.
However all of this falls apart in two scenes. About 3/4 of the way through the girls make a dance video to submit to be in the TV show. Not only are the dance moves incredibly sexually explicit, the scene is shot exactly like a porn would be. Every hip swing, every rump shake, every set of spread legs is focused center screen and close up. Then at the end of the movie, when they finally get their chance, they do the same but much worse. And the scene is once again shot like a porn. These girls are in skin tight tops, incredibly short shorts that are also skin tight, so you can see everything. They spread their legs and thrust their crotch at you, touch themselves erotically, just do all the stuff a stripper would basically.
So I guess the question is, do those two scenes, compromising maybe 5% of the total runtime spoil they movie? Absolutely. I understand what the director was going for, but her reach far exceeded her grasp. She clearly lacked the talent to accurately portray the problematic treatment of young girls, without treating those girls the way she is preaching against.
All of you defending it should watch it. Actually here, let me help you out just watch this scene. Play it on your computer at work, fun for the whole family.
PSN:Furlion
Netflix recently put out The Babysitter: Killer Queen, a sequel to The Babysitter which was a very pleasant surprise 3 years ago. It doesn't really live up to the original at all while attempting to rehash most of it but with terrible writing and everything dialed up to an unpleasant degree. Very disappointing, unfortunately.
McG directed both which means he got some of that delicious Netflix money for this one. It was ok but the first was so much better overall.
Nothing says "this is art, it's justified!" like multiple lingering creepshots of kid's crotches, it's like that was shot by an even creepier Michael Bay.
the hack frauds are talking about Cobra Kai!
Thank you for posting this. I had never heard of this show at all so comments like this grab my attention. We started a few days ago and are totally in love with it to the point we want to binge it but won't so that it will last longer. It's nice to have new and positive TV to watch during a year like this.
Yeah streaming is just a mess right now. I just dealt with VRV and their BS this weekend. So I guess if you subscribe to Premium Crunchyroll that is part of VRV but doesn't get you access to VRV. Instead you need to cancel Crunchyroll and subscribe to VRV, so you get the same Crunchyroll as before but now you have access to VRV.
They can re-brand all they want, in the next 5 some years we'll see a bunch of them die off. A quick look online suggests 3-4 services per household. Ignoring Amazon, since it's bundled, you have heavy hitters like Netflix, Disney+, Apple+, Hulu, and HBOMax. That's 5 right there. Peacock, Paramount, VRV, YoutubeTV, etc just don't seem to have a chance. And I'm not sure if any of this is taking Sling or HuluLive into account.
I actually liked the second one a lot more. It just seemed to incorporate a bit more style.
Granted, I don't remember a ton about the original.
I didn't even know Babysitter 2 was coming out until last week.
One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong.
Now she's trying to figure out why she can't get HBO MAX, which had something she wanted to see, when she already paid for HBO.
I honestly couldn't tell her what to HBO apps actually connect where.
I liked it well enough, it had some good deaths.
The original was better, though, as with Happy Death Day.
His bits about being in Asia and your first internet password are solid lasting chuckles.
If she was using HBO's streaming service as part of her subscription through her cable provider she would have been using HBO Go, which I think has shut down (I couldnt access it on my PS4 anyway). She should be able to just go to hbomax.com and log in with her cable provider info and then set up whatever app/device shes trying to watch it through however it prompts you (probably a code you have to enter into a website).
I think those are the steps I went through anyway. I remember having to make a HBO Max profile on the website before I could log in on my device.
It'd have made too much sense if they just rolled existing accounts into the HBO Max framework.
Right, and because the film is about how media sexualizes women from a very young age... it can't make its point?
Like, you're calling out two scenes where there's a creepy, leering male gaze present. Two scenes out of the whole film. Maybe consider that... it's intentional that only those two scenes are like that?
If the whole film was like that, then maybe I'd be understanding of the naysayers. But you might as well tell me that violence has no place in a film about the horrors of violence.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Disney+ makes perfect sense in that Disney just owns a fuckton of content. That's what you are paying for access to. This is especially true when they own both Marvel and Star Wars.
Like, sure, they've got original content too. But I think everyone knows that the point of Disney+ is that you are paying for access to their vault of stuff. It's an archive. A currently really really bad archive.
Also:
I'm assuming you saw the original that this was a sequel to?
I think this is the rare sequel that actually makes the original better.
I'm still not sure what to think about the whole thing. But from what I understand, the problem people have is that its actually doing the thing that is "abhorrent". Like, we don't actually murder people when trying to portray it in a movie. Its faked. For good reason, right? I think thats the reason for the outrage here. Like, some people find it so bad, that the act of actually doing it with real minors on screen is the problem. Re-enacting it for real is like actually doing it. Saying its for a film doesn't make it any more ok than killing someone and saying its for a film.
Again, I get their viewpoint, not sure how I feel about it still.
That looks like porn to you? Really? MTV has been showing worse than that in music videos since at least 1999. I'm not saying that 90 second clip isn't allowed to make you uncomfortable, but your insistence that if is beyond the pale and borderline pornography just shows that 1) you are apparently not aware of major media culture and 2) how much major media culture needs to be called out
There's nothing shocking in that video except the age of the actresses and that's the problem
It's on Amazon and if you have any affinity for stage theater, either as participant or audience, you'll probably get a kick out of it. So many good memories for me of people having the unexpected happen and just trying their damnedest to keep to the script
I guess all film critics are part of the child pedo sex rings that plague the world or something.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I think a problem here is that it's generally assumed that the camera is under the director's control. What a character says and does reflects on the character, and could be something that the director disagrees strongly with, but the camera is not a diegetic element. If a film goes soft-focus on the woman that just walked in, slowly panning up from her feet, while the soundtrack switches to light jazz, that's a statement that the director has chosen to make; none of those elements are present within the reality of the filmed world.
So, what does it mean when the camera goes all pervy? That's understood to be a statement from the director that you should find this sexually titillating. Does it actually mean that here? Apparently not, but there's a completely different language for "what the camera is focusing on isn't the director's statement" that the film isn't using. For example, you could have the camera actually be a diegetic object. The clip starts out with what appears to be a kid hitting a button on a camera, which is a good start, but then it just keeps moving the camera professionally, which severely damages the statement. (If the girls set a camera down and started dancing, a diegetic camera would not move.) Having the film switch to camcorder/phone quality at that point, or otherwise making it look unprofessional, or introducing the camera operator, or switching to a non-pervy camera for some shots are also useful elements that do not appear to be present. Or, you could cut back to having it displayed on a monitor, with someone else watching it to act as commentary. (If the objective is to show "girls trying to be sexy, even though that's a bad idea", then my first suggestion would be the editing session the girls do after shooting the video to allow for extra character building.) As it stands, the camera is pervy, and I don't see anything that shows the camera's viewpoint isn't the director's viewpoint.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Eh. The director can definitely be trying to introduce dissonance between what the direction is conveying and what is acceptable.
And if it's a film-within-a-film then it would be meant to convey how the character's making that film feel.
I saw the movie and the "child exploitation" angle (if you can call it that) is very clearly being used in the film to convey a criticism of modern (French) culture and how it is translated and consumed by an immigrant ethnic minority child.
I don't recall the last time anything like this popped up in these threads on D&D, and there have been tons and tons of films made in the past several years which are in a very similar vein which didn't create this particular type of vitriol based almost entirely on a stupid fucking marketing strategy. Eighth Grade, for example, has an incredibly uncomfortable car scene where an older teenager tries to coerce a young girl into sex, and a pool party scene where clearly underage girls are wearing skimpy bikinis which showed far more skin than in Cuties. Nobody batted an eye at any of that, calling it "honest" and "realistic" and "accurate" to the experience of a young girl in America today.
Using kids for this was inexcusable. The movie has multiple scenes of creep-bait and, just as those kids are not old enough to realize why emulating their hyper-sexed icons is a bad idea, they also have no fucking clue why being filmed emulating those icons is also bad. It's children. It's exploitation. It's child exploitation. It doesn't matter if the film is French or Texan or Martian, exploiting kids is exploiting kids. The cultural origin is irrelevant to the exploitation issue, unless you want to also justify that it's okay for countries to have child sex workers because "that's their culture".
Further, the issue of actual kids emulating this stuff is certainly real and disturbing, but this film is a whole extra level of disturbing because grown adults intentionally had kids displaying this behavior with leering camera shots, then tried to justify it. At least when kids are being dumbshits for Tiktok or whatever, they aren't being actively coached by a creepy-ass professional crew of adults on a damn set.
Considering everything that has down from the #MeToo movement in the last couple of years, it's thoroughly appalling that people can justify using kids this way when it's the exact sort of shit that sets them up to be preyed upon and exploited by people with money and power.
I don't know, I suspect the actresses in question are aware of what the film is about and what the message is. Children aren't stupid.