Would Have Been Almost Perfect If It Wasn't for All the Simping - The Super Mario Bros. Movie (2023) Discussion

[–] cyguration (3951) 2 years ago

It's all about pushing the girl-boss narrative.

I'm completely over it. I saw the trailer of Peach showing up Mario and being the typical kung-fu, physically gifted woman who is more competent than a man and "noped" right out.

reply

[–] Philhelm (509) 2 years ago

I saw the movie because wife/kids and it's even worse.

When Mario first meets Princess Peach he is made to complete an obstacle course to prove his worth to accompany her on a mission. The obstacle course has what you would expect from a Mario game (plenty of platform jumps, piranha plants, traps, bullets, etc.). Princess Peach easily completes the obstacle course as a demonstration. She then gives Mario a mushroom to eat which makes him taller, stronger, faster, etc. It takes him all day and night to complete the course by jumping on the flagpole but is intercepted by a piranha plant at the last second (or maybe it was a ball 'n chain; I can't quite remember), so he never actually completes the obstacle course. Princess Peach says that it's okay because he almost completed it and never quits, but eventually reveals that she previously completed the obstacle course on her first attempt.

Not only did Mario require a magic mushroom to compete with Princess Peach, he didn't even complete the obstacle course.

reply

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

And I'd have been okay with all of that, if it HADN'T been for the line where Peach reveals that she only took a single go to complete the course. It's made even worse that she lied about it (i.e. she feels compelled to lie to spare a 'fragile' man's feelings)

No doubt it's seen as a funny gag/a 'girl boss' moment, but it's a shame, because it *could* have made for a genuinely sweet moment that acknowledges that ALL people struggle and have to work hard to achieve their goals.

The irony is that all this 'GIRL BOSS'/FEMALE EMPOWERMENT BS can probably be directly linked to the increase in depression, poor mental health, self-harm and suicide among girls/women. Girls and women are now being set impossible standards to live up to (akin to the standards that were once, stupidly, expected of men), and so, they're now 'competing' with men when it comes to poor mental health.

A far better approach would be to say "Men *and* women are flawed, and that's okay" and "We all need to keep working at stuff to succeed/No-one masters anything the first time they do it." That message would be far more healthy for boys/men and girls/women.

Instead, what we get is "Men are shit" (which is what in turn leads to a society in which men/boys drop out and become video-game playing losers holed up in their moms' basements 24/7) and "Girls are perfect" (which in turn makes those women/girls who don't measure up to these IMPOSSIBLE standards, for ANY sex, to feel inadequate, and thus harms their mental health).

Like I say, instead of telling people "you are shit" or "you [should be] perfect", a better message is "You are flawed, but that's okay, as long as you keep trying." Speaking even as an atheist, that's a particularly pertinent message today, in view of Easter/the idea that 'Jesus died for our sins' (I'm not sneering here; although I might not personally subscribe to theism, the idea that Jesus died because humanity is imperfect, is arguably a positive and healthy idea).

reply

[–] LoveCatsHateDogs (1962) 2 years ago

"(akin to the standards that were once, stupidly, expected of men)"

Not true. Women are also expected to shit out and raise a bunch of kids too. For reference find one of those videos where "empowered" women cry about how they can't handle working, taking their kids to school, working out and cleaning their houses etc. like they have been told that they can do because they are now apparently perfect superhumans.

reply

[–] cyguration (3951) 2 years ago

so he never actually completes the obstacle course. Princess Peach says that it's okay because he almost completed it and never quits, but eventually reveals that she previously completed the obstacle course on her first attempt.

See, him never being able to complete the obstacle course would be fine. It would be reminiscent of the players who just never get good at certain levels in the game, but him eventually succeeding in the end is a fine pay off.

However, having Peach be perfect at it all and essentially being a better Mario than Mario is such an eye-rolling, typical Western bit of propaganda.

I think someone suggested that if it were Daisy who taught Mario, but she never actually went on the adventure with him, then I don't think I would have had as much of an issue, especially if Peach stayed Peach instead of being a typical, Twitter-tier feminist action hero.

The really sad part about it is that this movie is tracking to make $1 billion, showing that people are so starved for good content that they're fine with Mario being subverted to push feminist propaganda just to enjoy something with the kids that isn't filled to the brim with Rainbow Reich or trans propaganda.

reply

[–] Philhelm (509) 2 years ago

It makes sense that he would fail (hero's journey), but the two parts that stuck out were that Peach completed the obstacle course her first time and that I don't think she needed to eat a mushroom to complete the course (unless I missed something, which is possible with three kids and snacks getting passed around).

The pay-off was that Peach tells him that it's okay since he never knows when to quit, and that line is what later gives him the strength to face Bowser. But it's hamstrung by the above since why couldn't Princess Peach just do it herself?

reply

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

"and that I don't think she needed to eat a mushroom to complete the course (unless I missed something, which is possible with three kids and snacks getting passed around)."

TBF, I don't think they address that question, so it's possible she ate a mushroom to complete the course.

"The pay-off was that Peach tells him that it's okay since he never knows when to quit, and that line is what later gives him the strength to face Bowser. But it's hamstrung by the above since why couldn't Princess Peach just do it herself?"

Precisely, and this is the whole point. Filmmakers are so obsessed with fulfilling certain agendas, and appealing to certain fads, with respect to POWERFUL interest groups (i.e. the Mary Sue and Jezebel writers/demographics, and their strangehold on media opinion/consensus) that they forfeit any sense of narrative logic and reason.

Their primary focus should always be about servicing the story, rather than appeasing certain cultural critics and their fragile egos.

reply

[–] melloeric (28) 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] melloeric (28) 2 years ago

She explained that growing up in the mushroom kingdom allowed her to do it

reply

[–] LoveCatsHateDogs (1962) 2 years ago

If people hand over money for it then it will keep coming. It was clearly made by spineless cowards and the idiots continue to lap it up.

Basically, everyone is to blame.

reply

[–] cyguration (3951) 2 years ago

Yeah, it's just more of the Overton Window further moving to the Left.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6138) 2 years ago

So go woke go broke? What was that?

reply

[–] HAL9000 (935) 2 years ago

well she can glide with her dress.
you rather want mario in it?

reply

[–] xbxoxy (45) 2 years ago

Eventhough they changed the narrative (in the games the Mario brothers have to save the Princess) and now Mario have to save his brother... And the Princess is now a strong independent woman... Both Mario and Luigi are the ones that beat Bowser and save both realms.

reply

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

But why change the narrative? Am I being a 'misogynist gamer gate' person by suggesting that the old narrative was fine?

I have a problem where ALL women are portrayed as weak/helpless within pop culture, and I suppose it doesn't help that Peach is the one female character of any note within these stories (so there is no other women to offset the 'damsel-in-distress' narrative), but not EVERY woman has to be a frickin Mary Sue (the same applies to men; I'd get tired very quickly of any narrative that depicts all men as ultra-competent and brilliant). Can't we have a variety of characters? Why does every character have to be defined by their sex? Shouldn't we be moving away from such binary assumptions? It appears pop culture is lagging BEHIND the real-world, where sex/gender increasingly matters less (in the sense that many people now identify as non-binary).

reply

[–] cyguration (3951) 2 years ago

But why change the narrative? Am I being a 'misogynist gamer gate' person by suggesting that the old narrative was fine?

This.

There's nothing wrong with the original story.

In fact, in today's media environment, a damsel in distress storyline would actually be stunning and brave given that every other film out there has every lead female as a girl boss. I honestly can't think of a recent Western action/adventure film where that isn't the case?

reply

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

Also, isn't there now a whole 'reclaim the word "bimbo"' movement on Tiktok?

Assuming that's the case, then shouldn't it be seen as 'positive' and 'empowering' for some women to be bimbos? Or maybe these *faux*-bimbos have a different definition of 'bimbo' to those of us who actually understand the meaning of words.

Anyway, like you say, not even female character has to be a 'girl boss'. And from a feminist POV, isn't it quite alienating for those girls/women who don't relate to girl boss characters? What happened to so-called 'diversity' (as in having a diversity of female characters, with different/diverse personalities)? This is NOT 'woke'...

reply

[–] cyguration (3951) 2 years ago

Exactly!

We only ever seem to get one kind of woman now in certain kinds of movies, especially the action-adventure style films, where she's the snarky, hip, quick-witted, tough, kick-butt girl-boss. Basically, different shades of every single Michelle Rodriguez character.

Back in the day when she was the only type of archetype that would appear in the film as a female character, it was fine, but when every single female character in these kind of films fit that archetype, it's tiring. And as you say, there is no longer any diversity in how these female characters are depicted.

reply

[–] LoveCatsHateDogs (1962) 2 years ago

It could still be worse. Their dialogue could be written by Kevin Smith, for example.

reply

[–] cyguration (3951) 2 years ago

I mean, but it's not Princess Peach, then.

I remember someone was championing that this wasn't a woke film and Peach being a girl-boss was fine because they were glad she wasn't a "damsel in distress". I asked this person, "When was the last time there was a mainstream Hollywood movie where the lead female was a damsel in distress?"

They never replied.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6138) 2 years ago

Spider-man No Way Home. Man that was not too hard. Next.

reply

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

WTF? Who's the 'damsel-in-distress' in No Way Home? I hope you're not suggesting that super-intelligent, super-competent WOC, MJ, is a 'damsel-in-distress'. If you are, you've just admitted that Hollywood is RACIST, and only allows WOC, and not blonde white women, to be weak. NOT 'woke'.

But, fwiw, your post is BS anyway, because there were NO 'damsel in distress' characters in No Way Home. On the contrary, one of the female characters, Aunt May, ends up sacrificing herself to save everyone else.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6138) 2 years ago

So in order for them to be a damsel in distress they have to be dumb? Since when? Mj was saved in No Way Home that counts as being in distress. She has no abilities or powers. Her being smart does not disqualify her from being a damsel. That's like saying Marion from Raiders or Evelyn from the mummy aren't damsels because they are intelligent. Gtfoh!

reply

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

Smart, competent women are clearly not the typical 'damsel in distress' type. Heck, Peach had to be saved at at least one point in the Mario film, but she still doesn't fit the type, because she's clearly capable.

You're confusing actions for characterisation, which is sadly all-too-common these days. Shallow individuals (and there are a LOT of them in today's society) are OBSESSED with two things: actions and identity. Not the more interesting question of personality and character, which is fundamental to our differences as human-beings.

What a shallow, superficial, materialistic society we live in.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6138) 2 years ago

I was not talking about Peach. I was talking about MJ from No Way Home. Yes she is smart but she is in no way shape or form a physical presence. Same goes for Evelyn from the mummy or Marion from Raiders. What's dumb is how society complains no matter what. Remember Willie from Temple of Doom? Mary Jane from the Raini Spiderman films? What did people say? They are so annoying! All they do is scream and are a plot device for the hero to have someone to save. I heard this criticism ad nauseam. Damsels are fine but you need them to have personality outside of screaming to be saved. That in no way means they are capable of physical things just because they have personalities.

reply

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

Willie is a great character. I never understood the hate. The one and only thing I dislike about her character is where she says that her grandfather died poor, implying she had a hardscrabble life herself. Tha completely is at odds with how her spoiled, bratty, impatient, demanding and incapable character otherwise behaves (although I suppose it's there to give her *some* pathos, rather than make her a *complete* bimbo). Funnily enough, Spielberg said on a dvd documentary that the character was a 'spoiled rich girl', so either her parents made money, despite her grandfather dying a pauper, or Spielberg made a mistake. Still, it seems to me that Spielberg should have made her the way he intended, rather than giving her that unnecessary (simping) pathos, back in an era that was, for the most part, thankfully before all this unnecessary simping.

Anyway, like I say, Willie is a great character, for the most part. I never had any issue with her. I don't know why people complain. Did they want her to be a replica of Marion? What would have been the point of that? Can't female characters be different and unique? What is 'feminist' about insisting all women are the same? It's a weird militant type of socialist feminism that insists all women have to conform to one ideal, rather than emphasising individuality and diversity.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6138) 2 years ago

My point stands. You may like Willie but you are in the minority on that. Damsels can be intelligent also.

reply

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

If they're 'intelligent' and 'capable', they're not really helpless damsels, are they?

Do you believe it's 'offensive' and 'sexist' (*sigh*) to ever portray a female character as non-intelligent and incapable? If you're answer is 'yes', you are NOT a feminist. You ARE a supremacist.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6138) 2 years ago

When it comes to physical feets they can be helpless still yes. Evelyn nor Marion is taking on the physical feets the action heroes did in their films. They need Indiana or Rick to accomplish the goals which is beating the villains. Now a character such as the Bride from Kill bill is an action hero. She doesn't need a man in any capacity. Also no it isn't sexist to have a helpless woman. The point is people complained about Willie and Mary Jane from Spiderman in the Raimi series. Willie is the most hated Indiana Jones woman. There is a reason for that. Typically a character which adds something more than screaming is more exciting to the public. These are facts.

reply

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

Anyone who thinks Willie was just all about screaming, wasn't paying any attention to the film.

She was sassy, funny, great at exchanging barbs with Indy (so, she wasn't a complete bimbo, but actually had a bit of spunk about her), and she grew during the movie, eventually looking out for Short Round and displaying some compassionate traits.

With respect to Mary Jane, I didn't always care for how she was portrayed. She struck me as too smart and spunky to be a 'damsel in distress'. She was a working-class girl from a broken home who knew how to take care of herself, but unfortunately, the plot demanded that she was constantly being kidnapped and in peril. That element worked far more naturally for Bryce Dallas Howard's airhead rich girl take on Gwen Stacy, but seemed out-of-place when it came to Mary Jane. I think it was okay for her to be in peril during the first film, especially the scene where she was attacked by the gang, but by the second and third film, it had become tiresome.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6138) 2 years ago

Regardless she's the most disliked Indiana Jones woman for a reason. I personally don't agree with you and happen to think she is not an interesting character. I say that and I actually like Temple of Doom. I think she's the weak link.

The fact remains people find characters which are more intelligent or action driven to be more interesting. You can dislike it but that's the reality. The reason Catwoman is liked is because she is an action driven character. She provides more than simple romance for the hero. She serves that function also but there are other layers as well. Now let's turn the question around is sexist to portray a helpless man?

reply

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

It's not remotely sexist to portray a helpless man.

I suppose the issue is when all you've got is helpless women, or helpless men (it's not so bad if they're ALL helpless; that's just misanthropic, which I don't particularly have a problem with). I also get why in a film/franchise where there's only one woman, she has to be strong and capable.

What I like is that in Batman Returns, for instance, there are helpless bimbo characters, but since they're offset by Catwoman, who IS strong, intelligent and capable, the takeaway isn't that ALL women are weak. The takeaway is that ALL women are different, and in this instance THE most empathetic and compelling character happens to be female. Bumblebee, the one Transformers film I like, also does this. The main character is a strong, intelligent, capable teenage girl, and so, it doesn't matter that some of the other female characters are airheads. The main female is defined against them.

The problem is where you say ALL women are X, or ALL black people are Y.

If one appreciates the Indiana Jones franchise as one complete saga, rather than simply treat them as individual films, then you've got Marion, Willie, Elsa and the Irina, and now Phoebe Waller-Bridge's upcoming character. But, admittedly, every film should feature more than one 'token' female character (unless there's a compelling/sensible reason why all the characters are men, such as setting a film in a monastery or a men's prison), so that the representation of 'ALL WOMANHOOD' isn't resting on one character's shoulders.

I personally like films that feature a variety of diverse female characters. It's important that female characters aren't defined solely by their sex/gender, but are given different personalities, some positive, some negative, some in-between.

That said, I DO think Willie Scott is a better character than everyone says, and if she wasn't pretty much the only woman of any note in TOD, I don't think her presence wouldn't be so controversial.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6138) 2 years ago

See but the issue is anytime you have an action heroin that's a woman people scream woke! They scoff that a female action hero can achieve impossible feats. I find this dumb because no one bats an eye when Indiana Jones, James Bond or other male action heroes achieve an impossible feat. If we are going to adhere totally to realism the action heroes we love and admire wouldn't be able to do most of what they do.

Now if the character is ridiculously overpowered hence Rey from the Disney Star Wars that is an issue regardless of gender. If you made Rey a male it wouldn't change anything, the character would still be a Mary Sue regardless of gender. The bride from kill bill, Ripley from Aliens are good characters who are compelling they just happen to be female. They are good characters first.

Mary Jane is a plot device it's why people don't like her. Nothing about Willie is exciting. Marion is Indiana's adventure equal not physical adventure equal. Elsa is his historical equal. Elsa has the femme fatale aspect. The forbidden love that has lots of shades of gray. Willie is his exact opposite. Annoying, prissy and offers little help. It's no secret why she's the least favorite Indy girl.

reply

[–] cyguration (3951) 2 years ago

Who was the damsel in distress? Because if you're going to point the one scene where the middle Spider-Man saved MJ from falling to her death after she saved them from the villains, that's not really a damsel in distress moment if SHE was saving them, especially since all three Spider-Men were dudes in distress because each of them had to be saved as well. But who was captured, purely in distress, a damsel, and unable to save herself in anyway?

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6138) 2 years ago

So had they not caught her what would have happened? She would have lived right? Do you know the meaning of distress? That is like claiming Willie in Temple of Doom was not a damsel because she was able to disable the trap in Temple of Doom. By helping them that put her in distress. In no way was MJ physically capable of doing what the male characters did in that film. She needed to be saved and was. That counts as being in distress by the definition. You are now attempting to twist the narrative because your agenda is important to you. More so than logic is. As I pointed out before people hate Willie from Indiana Jones and they hated Mary Jane from Raimi's Spider-man trilogy. Notice a pattern here?

People like when a woman character is more than a plot device to give the hero something to save.

reply

[–] cyguration (3951) 2 years ago

So had they not caught her what would have happened? She would have lived right? Do you know the meaning of distress?

You ignored the part where ALL the Spider-Men were in distress, too. In fact, the Spider-Men were in MORE distress throughout the film than Zendaya was, who was only in distress ONCE after she saved/helped the Spider-Men multiple times.

The damsel in distress trope relates to a female who cannot save herself, and spends some considerable time in distress due to circumstances outside of her own doing, requiring saving or help from someone else. Zendaya never spent any considerable time in distress, and in fact, spent LESS time in distress than the three Spider-Men, who needed to be saved MULTIPLE times throughout the film.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6138) 2 years ago

You also ignored the fact that people moaned and groaned about damsels in distress. Willie as well as Mary Jane got criticized constantly. Things in Hollywood change and evolve. The damsel trope did get a bit tiresome after a while. And no the damsel in distress means exactly what I said it means. You are twisting it to mean what you want it to in order to suit your narrative. You asked for when a lead female got saved by a male character and I provided the evidence. Deal with it.

reply

[–] cyguration (3951) 2 years ago

Here's a common descriptor for the trope: "The damsel in distress is a recurring narrative device in which one or more men must rescue a woman who has either been kidnapped or placed in general peril"

Zendaya fell saving the Spider-Men (who were in more distress more times throughout the film than her). One of the Spider-Men rescued her. If you're being pendatic, yes, she was a damsel (young woman) who was temporarily in distress (she fell). She was not kidnapped, or in constant general peril throughout the film. Though, ironically, Peter was... and fits a reverse gender role of the damsel in distress trope more than Zendaya did.

You also ignored the fact that people moaned and groaned about damsels in distress.

And? People moan and whine about everything.

The damsel trope did get a bit tiresome after a while.

And? It doesn't mean it needs to go away completely. Mario is one of those times where it would have fit perfectly to the narrative of the entire franchise. Now it's been completely replaced with tough-chicks who don't need no man... in EVERY single action movie.

You still couldn't even name a modern film with a damsel in distress, and the only one you could come up with was one where the damsel saved multiple DUDES in distress who were in more distress than she was MORE times throughout the film.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6138) 2 years ago

See now you are stretching the narrative. Bottom line I showed where a damsel was in distress. You just want to omit it because it gets in the way of your agenda. I can list others not just that one actually. Mad Max Fury Road is all about rescuing the wives which are women from oppression. Max himself bests Furiosa and saves her in that film multiple times. Now before you go well she saved him not as many times as he saved her. Evelyn also saved Rick in the Mummy would you consider her as tough as he is?

Yeah people do moan and groan about everything as do you. So why should we cater to your complaints now? What makes you so special?

It has not gone away completely it just is not as prevalent as it used to be. I can list others also. There is the Northman, Mad Max Fury Road, Sicario and many more. I also can direct you to Daredevil the tv show, Game of Thrones etc. So you want me to name more cause I got plenty more.

reply

[–] cyguration (3951) 2 years ago

See now you are stretching the narrative. Bottom line I showed where a damsel was in distress.

No, I'm clarifying what I originally asked, which you haven't been able to properly answer...

"When was the last time there was a mainstream Hollywood movie where the lead female was a damsel in distress?"

Zendaya was more hero than damsel in distress. She had ONE moment in the newest film where she was in distress, and was in LESS distress than the three male heroes, the main one (prime Spider-Man) who was in distress all throughout the film.

Compare that to the Rami films, where yes, Mary Jane actually WAS a damsel in distress, including being captured and tied up in the second film, where she was completely helpless and could do nothing without being helped by Peter. That is an actual damsel in distress. Zendaya was never in that kind of situation in No Way Home, but Peter was.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6138) 2 years ago

The hero being in more distress makes sense they are fighting the villains after all. She was more a hero? I am confused she has no powers, is not physically gifted in any way and has no weapon. Simply because she was able to help out the hero does it mean she was more a hero than a damsel. Also I like how you ignored the other movies I gave examples of. I listed a bunch but okay Sicario. Emily Blunt is the lead female in that she gets rescued by a man in the film. What is your excuse here? You side step it because you know it disproved your point. Also MJ in No Way Home counts as being in distress you simply attempted to change the definition.

reply

[–] cyguration (3951) 2 years ago

Also MJ in No Way Home counts as being in distress you simply attempted to change the definition.

I used the definition of the common trope how it's typically applied to fiction, which you had to ignore.

Emily Blunt is the lead female in that she gets rescued by a man in the film. What is your excuse here?

Once again, you're saying any time a female is in any peril she becomes a damsel in distress. That's now how the trope works. The trope refers to a situation where the female is captured and cannot rescue herself for some extended period of time, or is unable to save herself in any significant way.

A main character being temporarily in a perilous situation is common in every single action/adventure film, male or female. I specifically asked for a lead female who was an actual damsel in distress -- unable to save herself, captured throughout the entire/majority of the film, or significantly incapacitated for a length of time, such as Blake Lively's character in Savages, or the princess in the film Dragon Slayer.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6138) 2 years ago

No you simply said damsel in distress. You were not specific. If you wanted me to apply it specifically then you should have been far more specific.

Emily Blunt could not save herself in any way shape or form. She was being strangled to death. Had it not been for Benicio Del Toro's character she would have been dead. Guess what she also did not save him.

So no I met the criteria. I do not care about your specific scenario. You have garbage taste in cinema and I am glad idiots like yourself are not involved in making films. Let the grown ups do the work, sit back close your mouth and watch. They accomplish things you could only dream of doing.

reply

[–] melloeric (28) 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Rorikon (17940) 2 years ago

It's for all the guys out there that can't a hot chick for being inadequate themselves. I say it's a nice thing since a lot of the thots these days go for the hot stud who do them wrong a lot or cheat on them, hehe. Also, nothing wrong with a tough woman that can challenge you to beat her. :P

reply

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

All this talk of 'incels' makes me laugh.

A lot of guys who aren't having sex aren't thirsting. Do you know why? Because PRIDE matters more than sex, and having sex with a woman who considers us to be a fucking loser (and I know MANY women who sleep with fucking LOSERS) doesn't interest us. SELF-ESTEEM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sex. EVERY FUCKING TIME. The irony is, this sense of pride and self-denial is considered 'misogynist' by some people, and yet, if a woman says "I'm going to be single/deny myself sex" it's seen as a form of 'empowerment'. *sigh* Talk about double-standards.

We AREN'T all Harvey Weinsteins. We aren't all happy to be FAT, UGLY, SLIMY, INADEQUATE PIGS (and yes, I called a Jewish man a 'pig'. Anyone got a problem with that?!? 😠 He IS a fucking pig for all the women he ABUSED!), who have sex with women who are better than us. Some of us still believe that affection should be EARNED, and that women shouldn't sleep with us out of sympathy/pity, or in Weinstein's case, out of fear (which I suppose parallels with Boswer in this film). Men should be STRONG, HANDSOME, VIRILE, CHIVALROUS, DASHING, CHARMING, COMPETENT and ADMIRABLE. If a woman doesn't FIRST respect me, I don't want her body.

But we're now living in an age of beta-cuck SIMPS who feel no shame in getting a sympathy-fuck. PATHETIC. 😠

I'm now off to the gym, to work on my body, like a REAL MAN does.

PS: The fact that I condemn ABUSERS, like Weinstein, and INADEQUATE SIMPS, who bring NOTHING to the table, arguably makes me a TRUE FEMINIST. So, why are people like me now seen as 'misogynists'? Because we aren't prepared to play the role of the simping loser?!? 🤷‍♂️

reply

[–] melloeric (28) 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

There's no need to be rude.

And I use this word because it suits my needs. I use it for people who moon over certain men too.

The reason why people like you have been conditioned to believe the word is toxic is because the people with power (i.e. the rich, the famous, the celebs etc) want to maintain a social order in which we put them on a pedestal (i.e. 'simp' for them), so it's in their interests to deride and shame anyone who calls out their BS, and the BS of the people who fawn over them. I'm going to keep using the word because I don't believe any dignified, self-respecting human should be in awe of anyone. I believe in EQUALITY; NOT SUPREMACY. If you think otherwise, I suggest you're the one with the problem, but, sure, mock me because I've *not* been brainwashed... *sigh*

reply

[–] melloeric (28) 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

I have a child, you fool. I don't go to kids movies for myself. Although I mostly enjoyed this one, there are many other films I'd choose to see over it, if it wasn't for my nephew. I'm not even a gamer FFS (although if I *had* to play a game, MarioKart is the one I'd settle for).

reply

[–] melloeric (28) 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

So, your advice is that I shouldn't have taken my nephew to a kids' movie. You sound nice...

Clearly, you're a nasty POS who hates kids. Do you vote Republican too? Seems like you do.

See, we can all make dumbass assumptions, but yours was PARTICULARLY moronic.

Grow up, and think/learn all the FACTS, before you open your cakehole. IDIOT.

reply

[–] xergan (1067) 2 years ago

Cant wait for Mario Movie 2, where it gets revealed that Peach in reality couped herself on the throne by brutally murdering her dad and two baby bros (first in succession).

reply

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

I actually like that idea.

reply

[–] melloeric (28) 2 years ago

people leave their kids with this guy.

reply

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

And you're such a decent, normal individual, I'm guessing...snarking away and being rude to complete strangers...

You seem like a weirdo to me. Definitely someone that kids should stay away from.

reply

[–] melloeric (28) 10 months ago

Miserable incel

reply

[–] RoloTony (1293) 2 years ago

She’s a blonde blue princess. She’s always been a blonde blue princess. That’s the character. Princesses are privileged by nature. 🤷‍♂️ If you don’t like the Mario characters you shouldn’t have patronized it.

reply

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

Yes, she's a princess, and I'm 100% fine with that. But they're trying to have their cake and eat it.

They're trying to have a spoiled, rich woman of privilege who's ALSO capable, strong, smart, athletic and superior to the working-class and blue-collar characters. It's a bizarre and counterproductive version of 'wokeness', that ignores ALL other forms of systemic privilege, and exclusively simps for RICH BLONDE WHITE WOMEN (one of THE most powerful and privileged demographics in society).

Any form of 'feminism' that ignores intersectionality, and the privilege RICH BLONDE WHITE WOMEN, especially a frickin PRINCESS, possesses, is NO form of TRUE progressive feminism.

All this simping for RICH WHITE WOMEN is not coincidentally coinciding with a rise in hate towards Black men, Jewish people and members of the trans and gay male community.

reply

[–] HAL9000 (935) 2 years ago

super mario bros 2 would like to have a word with you

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 2 years ago

There is no "rise of hate" towards black men. The rise in hate of jews is coming from teh left. The push back of the trans and gay activist agenda, is not "hate" but resistance.

reply

[–] melloeric (28) 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] melloeric (28) 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] melloeric (28) 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

Stop simping for the studios and big-wig Hollywood execs/corporations.

And, yes, I will continue to use that word without shame, because I don't see why I should be forced to worship people with more power and money than me. Unlike you, I believe in equality not supremacy, and I will NOT be shamed for calling out people with more power than me.

But well done in falling hook-line-and-sinker for the capitalist/corporatist consensus. Enjoy your time playing the rat race. I've been there. It was awful. But if you enjoy prostrating yourself for powerful, abusive, arrogant, hubristic assholes who demand complete subservience, knock yourself out.

reply

[–] melloeric (28) 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

I'm not going to take my eight-year-old nephew to The Pope's Exorcist or Air, am I? You fool.

reply

[–] Kowalski (76230) 2 years ago

THAT KID'S PARENT SSHOULD TAKE A LONG HARD LOOK IN THE MIRROR IF THEY ARE LEAVING THEIR KID WITH YOU.

reply

[–] melloeric (28) 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

Explain, please?

I have been pleasant to you, why are you so vile to me?

You seem to piss off everyone in this forum. I thought you'd have gone easier with me, since I'm a lib, but it seems you can't help yourself. You have to attack EVERYONE, don't you?

reply

[–] Kowalski (76230) 2 years ago

WE BOTH KNOW WHAT YOU ARE...LIB IS A COVER.

reply

[–] melloeric (28) 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

Ableism? Nice...

What point are you trying to make here?

You're clearly NOT a progressive if you think mocking mental health and putting 8-year-old kids in a vulnerable situation, is acceptable. So, I'm not sure what your goal is. Clearly it isn't 'feminist', unless you're one of those modern RACIST, HOMOPHOBIC, TRANSPHOBIC, ABLEIST, ANTI-SEMITIC RIGHT-WING 'feminists'...

reply

[–] Rorikon (17940) 2 years ago

For some reason this sounds like an incel point of view. You're mad Peaches likes a weak, pathetic, inadequate man rather than someone like you? What's the point of this post?

reply

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

Peach doesn't exist, so your post is silly.

And I didn't say what someone like me was. Perhaps I'm weak, pathetic and inadequate. This isn't about me. My wants and needs are entirely IRRELEVANT (since I am NOT a materialist, but prefer to focus on more ideological and philosophical concerns, sex and wealth etc are an abstraction). This is a general observation about manhood.

I'm just disappointed in the lack of pride and self-esteem among men. Since we talk about 'male privilege' all the time, it seems to me that men *should be* better than women, or at least try to be better than women.

Imagine having all that 'privilege' and still coming out second best. That's NOT equality (I'm an EGALITARIAN; hardly an incel or an alt-righter, but actually much MORE progressive than all you SUPREMACISTS, whether you believe in male or female supremacy). That's supremacy. That's saying that even with all those advantages, men are still weak and useless.

If you were to give person A $100, and person B $50, and at the end of the week, person A had made only $200, but person B had made $500, clearly person B is *superior* to person A, seeing that person A started out at an advantage.

Perhaps you, as a man, are satisfied and relaxed about such a state-of-affairs, but to me, that comes across as pretty shameful and sad.

Wanting to improve oneself and not being so complacent to luxuriate in one's privileges BUT have nothing positive to show for it, is the OPPOSITE of misogyny and sexism. It's in fact, all about responsibility and duty. It's acknowledging that if one is at a systemic advantage, it stands to reason that one should do something constructive with that advantage.

What any of that has to do with 'incels' I do not know. Perhaps you could explain, or are you just using a trendy buzzword without any genuine thought or consideration as to how it remotely applies in this instance?

reply

[–] doublea (108) 2 years ago

.... she says why she can complete the course, because she grew up in that world and already knew what the obstacles were and how they worked.

Plus it was meant to highlight Mario's determination and not giving up ... It's a reflection of the actual game and the need to keep replaying over and over after dying, or getting all the way to the end only to accidentally die etc.

reply

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

"... she says why she can complete the course, because she grew up in that world and already knew what the obstacles were and how they worked."

And that would have been perfectly fine and have made perfect sense, if it had not been for the unnecessary and utterly egregious line about how she mastered the course the FIRST TIME. That line was added for a reason.

Also, in the actual game, I don't recall Princess Peach being a playable character in the original platform game. Aren't you meant to rescue her in the original game? So, I'm not sure fidelity to the source material is an argument...

reply

[–] doublea (108) 2 years ago

I took it as she mastered this particular course 1st time ... not that it was the first time she had encountered those types of blocks or obstacles before, or that it was even the first ever course she did in the kingdom.

reply

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

The film emphasised that she lied about mastering the course first time to spare Mario's embarrassment, the implication being that it was a very impressive endeavour.

reply

[–] doublea (108) 2 years ago

Yeah but her trailing remark is that she grew up there, indicating that she was familiar with the blocks and such ... not completely green with no prior knowledge like Mario was.

A slight analog that some people were naturals at the Mario games and others weren't perhaps.

reply

[–] ReelReviews14 (1220) 2 years ago

>> Also, in the actual game, I don't recall Princess Peach being a playable character in the original platform game <<

She is in Super Mario Bros. 2, I thought it was a clear reference to that. I think they even showed her ability to float from that game.

reply