MovieChat Forums > MagneticMonopole > Replies
MagneticMonopole's Replies
Your failure to back up your delusional bullshit has been duly noted.
"Gee, it doesn't change the fact she's a hypocrite for not insisting on working with female directors?"
Gee, maybe you should think about how the world actually works. Maybe you should, you know, think in general.
There is nothing in her snarky comments that suggests she should have "insisted on working with female directors" and only a knuckle dragging moron would interpret it that way. You need to stop being an idiot and think about how choices are made by actors.
If only 7% of available projects involve female directors, and you are an A-list actor wanting to be involved with popular and prestigious movies, this means the number of female directed films that advance your career are rare. Most of the time, no matter how much you may want to work under a female director, the projects that interest you are going to be handed off to men because of the sexism of the studio system.
Look at how much of the talk leading up to the release of Wonder Woman circled around how much of a "risk" it was to let Patty Jenkins direct the movie. Guys with no blockbuster experience get hired to make big budgeted films all the time without this kind of hand wringing.
The gender of your director is just one factor in deciding which movies to participate in. Stop your foolishness in demanding she make it the only factor in order to avoid being a hypocrite. You obviously don't even know what that word means.
Cupcake, you are the one making extraordinary claims. The burden of proof is on you--and you've failed to meet that burden because fundamentally you are full of shit.
"What the OP instad stated is that critics which dont comply with the needed review ratings lose things like early access."
I base my understanding of reality on objective evidence. Please provide some that this or any of the other "punishments" you allege actually happen and happen frequently enough that this amounts to serious pressure that film critics need to worry about.
Good luck with that! Because we both know it ain't coming.
"So are you realizing now how naive and completely clueless your posting was now that you are familiar with the real world?"
Actually, people like you and the writer of the OP are the ones who end up looking naive and absurd.
No doubt, if the entire cast had all been white males everything would have been right in your world and you wouldn't have been triggered to make this idiotic post like the moronic special snowflake you are.
What in hell are you talking about?
"You have the discernment of a toddler and the ignorance of a backwoods hermit if you think it's far fetched that review websites would collude with creators of a reviewed product. "
I base my views on logic, evidence, and reason. These concepts are obviously very foreign to you.
"I thought this was such an insulting and egomaniacal comment that disrespected the directors nominated that I went back and started counting the gender of the directors she worked with... it was something like 1 female director for every 10 male directors."
Gee, do you think that may have something to do with the fact that only 7% of movie directors are female in the first place?
You nutcases would be hilarious if you weren't so pathetic in your conspiracy theory delusions.
You aren't exactly known for your grip on reality, are you?
"It does effect them if they are denied early access to movies because of how they review them. "
Please provide evidence from a responsible source showing that this even happens.
"Being a movie critic is a job like any other, and if a critic reviews a movie poorly, especially if it's an exclusive early preview offered by a studio so that the critic's publisher can get a scoop, then ticket sales will suffer, the studio will make less money and those offers will dry up and the critic will earn nothing from then on."
This is delusional nonsense. Critics don't make money based on how well movies they review do.
Here is another one:
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmUL6wMpMWw[/url]
Again: you have absolutely no evidence to support your delusion. Evidence would mean citing a bad review either of them actually gave for the first film.
You can't do it, because those reviews don't exist.
You are really embarrassing yourself.
Your denial is a strange statement about your mental health and connection to reality. Get some help.
All I ask for is evidence. Since you have absolutely none, you are forced by your delusion to make shit up. How pathetic.
I was 14 when the movie came out, idiot, and I saw it in the theater twice.
Again: you have zero evidence to support your case. Zero.
But keep making a fool of yourself in a public space. You are quite good at it.
Hey, if interacting with that moron entertains you, then who am I to complain? You come off looking better and smarter at any rate.
Mangled, you are dealing with one of the dumbest, most deranged, idiotic trolls on these boards. This piece of human excrement is simply not worthy of your time. He/she isn't really interested in an answer and wouldn't accept a good one, which you can see in the opening post and the fact that your perfectly acceptable responses were rejected.
Really, don't bother with this loser.
Regardless, the book is just a money grab that doesn't tell us anything we couldn't already obviously see during the election: Trump is an incompetent, unstable man-child surrounded by unqualified morons desperate to keep him under control.
Those are interesting facts. They also have absolutely no merit as evidence that professional critics are paid off by studios.