https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEQO9AYW7xg
Wow, so I guess this is the kind of crap IMDB decides is more worth its time than "silly" message boards, huh?
They can go to hell for all I care, not that I didn't have that sentiment before but it's definitely strengthened now.
I am getting in with the times. I am accepting it.
shareWith decisions like this, it's no wonder why IMDb tried to silence the majority of its users. It also explains why they didn't respond in any meaningful way to the backlash after they removed the boards.
The truth is the tide has already turned on this wave of political correctness, but rather than acknowledge this fact, they choose to ignore it. The response is to simply remove the ability for users to comment or discuss anything.
Most people don't agree with this nonsense, but until recently considered it a trivial matter that didn't affect them personally. But those already opposed are more likely to voice their disapproval when they see writers and filmmakers compromising their artistic integrity so the powers that be can push their political agenda. It won't matter if the majority are opposed to it since huge corporations such as IMDb can pull the plug on any meaningful discussion.
In this era where privacy is becoming such an issue, we should be more concerned about circumstances where our own words can and will be used against us to paint a false narrative. It's in our best interest to speak up against this now, since we won't be able to in the future.
And I say all this as someone who would like to see more representation in mainstream films. At best, this decision is extremely patronizing since most film fans are intelligent enough to read about films they are planning on seeing and can make a decision based on its representation if it is relevant.
I don't see the problem. It's another tag to add to many other ones. Women are underrepresented in the film industry and to just give that the tiniest bit of attention might help add more talented people to future movies or let people compare movies with that tag. I love Point Break and that was directed by Kathryn Bigelow who has also done The Hurt Locker, Zero Dark Thirty and Strange Days. All excellent films.
If people want to put her up against other women by limiting her to an F-rating then that is their problem. She is a fine director in her own right and has proven herself to be. She's an exception to the rule or she's merely talented, I like to think it is her talent and not her gender which make her amazing.
"I don't see the problem. It's another tag to add to many other ones."
It introduces selective bias into an official classification system, and would further limit the way movies are marketed. If anything, it does more of a disservice to women since it assumes that only women like to see themselves on screen, while history has taught us that that is not the case at all. Inversely, all these superhero films wouldn't be raking in all this cash if only men went to see them.
Check out this quote:
"The F-Rating is applied to films by cinemas and film festivals giving movie-goers an easily identifiable label so they can choose films that **fairly **represent women on screen and behind the camera,”
What does the word fairly even mean?
To me it implies that women are unfairly represented on screen and behind the camera just now. If studios are willing to gamble on going down this road then box office takings will let them know if it is the right or wrong thing to do. It is only on IMDB and sits alongside action, gore, docudrama and other tags which give an indication of content.
If an entirely new rating system came out weighted in favour of this f-rating then yes, that would be a problem. The Wachowski sisters would have films rated higher than the Wachowski brothers and that is unfair. But that is not the case here. Yet at least.