MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
This kind of 'hiding woman's real power' problem is also evident when they depict a rich man being 'lonely' and eating dinner in his big, old, cold mansion all alone.. so.. alone.
Come on! Rich people have the equivalent of simps hovering around them as well. They don't have (but could) to use some kind of escort service to have company for any purpose, dinner or otherwise. They would have 20 000 emails every day asking for this or that, money, their company and so on. They would have thousands of invitations to all kinds of parties and places.
People gravitate towards wealth and beauty, femininity and money, power in any useful form and things they lust for.
Watching a silly movie like 'The Game' or one of those Bill Murray movies where some rich guy is just SOOOO lonely just makes me groan out of destruction of suspension of disbelief.
This kind of tropes come about because of an agenda - no honest writer would ever write something like this.
All these massive speeches about equality and the insanity about the privileged people based on their perversions are not going to change these stupid tropes. We will always see them in movies over and over again, because agenda. We can never see a woman take a fist to the face, especially from a man's strong punch. We can never see the scene genders reversed, a man is never shown as valuable enough to be the 'damsel in distress' that an expendable, workhorse-woman would save.
A woman dying gives a man the motivation to explode villages (Rambo: First Blood Part II), but a dying man is not going to even make a woman sneeze.
This means, motivation is simple to write for a male protagonist, but impossible for a female one. She has to save the Universe or the world, but she can't go just rescue some ... MAN.
Equality? No such thing in movies.. we never see a HUMAN character regardless of gender - every character is fully based on their gender, which dictates their values, their motivations and their value.
This means, these platforms have an agenda that holds women to be SO WEAK, they can't even take 'wrong words' without fainting in their fainting divan.
Is this strong and independent? Shutting up men doesn't prove women are strong, it only proves someone thinks women are incredibly weak.
So why can't they write women as well as some male characters? How many 'incredibly well-written, classic female characters' come to mind, when you think about movies and TV shows and other stories?
I actually LOVE strong women in stories. I can't get enough of watching Cynthia Khan, Michelle Yeoh or Moon Lee (who can also sing and dance).
I guess the problem is that hollyweird doesn't understand what makes a character strong. Mz Marvel is a good example of this.
My point is, women can easily be 'physically' and 'powerfully' strong in movies, but why can't they ever be strong in a more subtle way and use their femininity to get what they want, just like they do in real life? One small example is when a woman shows a henchman her boobies, and that creates the possibility for an escape or something (Austin Powers 2, for example - not gonna bother writing the whole name of that movie).
Hollyweird trying to make women into men with boobies also destroys immersion. A woman never HAS to do the things men have to, because a woman has OPTIONS men doesn't. An attractive, young woman with great body would never have to punch some guard, when she could seduce him. She would never have to climb down a sewer to fix a pipe, when she can EASILY get a man to do that for her. She would never have to go the 'man-route', because it's just so much easier and more convenient to use the TREMENDOUS social-sexual power women so routinely use in real life.
Any semi-attractive woman has about 1 billion simps hovering around her that she can send to do her bidding - she can never suffer from loneliness.
Diversity doesn't come from making 'period art' or dressing up as a fagina.
Strength doesn't come from being a Mary Sue.
Equality doesn't come from being a damsel in distress, or making men do the hard work.
Independence doesn't come from the cliché trope of woman nagging her way into a dangerous mission, where the man then has to rescue and save her.
Good writing doesn't come from ruining the potential of a premise or story by injecting romance into it (and thus pandering to female audience).
I don't need to see 'masculine stories', I would settle for 'interesting human stories' that do not pander to anyone and that do not bend to any agenda, political or otherwise. Just an interesting story that needs to be told, because it's a really good one.
Do women really need to see 'strong, independent women' in cinema?
Why can't a strong woman ever be strong in a feminine way? Think about an ultra-feminine woman - her strength would be that she can manipulate men, bend them to her will, wrap men around her little finger, so to speak. Femme fatale is an old trope, but it hasn't been used to its full potential, because there's always hollyweird agenda in the way.
I think 'Critical Drinker' once mentioned something like this, when he described what Black Widow did in some movie I haven't seen.
Movies always underestimate women's feminine power, that gives them so many perks and such high social status. Even average woman sits higher above even relatively accomplished, hard-working men than a male CEO would be above women. Women are basically celebrities just by the virtue of having a fjayna between their big toes.
There are zillions of women's organizations, agendas, 'women this' and 'women that', and blaming and accusing men, insulting and hating men is normal, accepted and even encouraged. NO ONE has ever received a ban, a warning or any kind of problem because they hate men or insulted men, on ANY social platform, including youtube.
How can people watch a movie and yet remain so oblivious, even though everything is explained very well, in a way that's very easy and simple to understand?
Oh, I just looked at your name - not even capitalized...
It's not worth getting into, but I have nothing else to do anyway,so here goes.
She explained the whole thing in the movie - Sifu loved Tai Lung so much, he couldn't see what an a-hole Tai Lung really was. Oogway saw 'darkness in his heart', so Sifu realized there was something wrong, and eventually, his eyes were opened to the full horror of the situation. This meant Sifu closed his heart and refused to feel anything good for his students anymore, so Tigress felt she was robbed out of a childhood Sifu freely gave Tai Lung.
No matter how hard she tried, she couldn't 'buy Sifu's love', so she tried harder, and failed harder, and so on. This made her bitter and angry, but she thought she at least proved herself as some sort of kung-fu master to Sifu and others.
Then suddenly some fat, untrained panda with no discipline or skills appears and is immediately taken in by Oogway, which makes Sifu reluctantly accept him in the group. It doesn't feel deserved or earned to Tigress, who worked so hard all her life just to impress Sifu somehow. The panda is accepted so easily, it triggers the already existing anger, bitterness and resentment, so Tigress feels the only way she can prove her worth, is to handle Tai Lung and thus show everyone she IS the true Dragon Warrior.
This fails spectacularly, of course, but there's plenty to hate about Po from her perspective and point of view. The rest just see him as a nerdy loser who doesn't deserve such sudden elevation in status, but Tigress has deeper, more meaningful reasons for resenting and hating him, and she's being surprisingly reserved about it in the movie.
If you don't get it now, I can't help ya.
Your comment sucks, because you don't understand capitalization, punctuation or simple english grammar.
I won't even bother correcting you, because the context of your message and title combined just to form a failed provocation attempt. Trolling takes effort.
They're not characters, they're kung-fu style stereotypes personified.
In any case, think about 'Sifu' - I think it should be pinyined as 'shifu', but other than that, it's like calling your doctor or master 'sensei', it's not a real name, either.
That's not the message.
The message is that just because your natural self doesn't fit in with the 'expected norm', doesn't mean that it isn't amazing if someone is willing to train you within your OWN parameters, instead of trying to make you fit into others'.
The message is that you might have a special quality that makes something impossible for others, possible for you. The Panda couldn't be acupuncture-controlled due to his fur (? I mean, it couldn't be the fat, because that's not how anything works), so it was an advantage the 'Dragon Warrior' needed in the fight against Tai Lung.
Also, you might have hidden talents that would go to waste unless they are seen and utilized to train you to reach your full potential.
Do you REALLY think that kids will pick up your distorted version of the actual message from this movie full of more wisdom than 100 other movies combined?
I think the message is more about the peach tree stuff - you shouldn't try to change a peach tree into some other tree, because it's always going to be a peach tree. However, you can CULTIVATE the peach tree to its full potential, and by letting it, the peach tree might surprise you.
"Tigress was defeated. "
No, she wasn't.
She defeated herself, but learned a lesson eventually, and kept going. In the end, she emerged victorious, because she found and accepted her place and limitations.
Bruce Lee was strong, skilled and amazingly talented, and constantly strove to make himself better, stronger, faster and better at combat.
However, it wasn't until he was practically immobilized for around six months that he gained his _TRUE_POWER_, which is deep understanding through contemplation and training his MIND to realize what's important in a fight.
Then he became AMAZING, and much stronger, even though he didn't train his physical side for a long time, and was wheelchair-bound for a long time (of course after he recovered enough, he started training again and made himself even physically stronger than before).
What I am trying to get at, is that even a real-life example shows that you can't be 'optimally strong' by physical side/training alone, you have to apply your mind, contemplate, meditate and realize deeper truths to reach THAT LEVEL.
I think this is very believably what Tai Lung did. The writers didn't think through MANY things about this movie's story and details, BUT this is not one of them. This is actually a very believable thing - he had nothing to do but think, contemplate, plot, plan, understand, realize, reflect, improve things in his mind.
Inner strength is not SILLY, it's very applicable in real life and a real fight, even. Just watch the kung-fu documentary that 'China Uncensored' made (although it was unfinished), it should open your eyes to the reality of the folly of 'purely physical' thinking.
Bob is a schizophrenic psycho murderer, and Helen is a BAD MOM, because she secretly doesn't care about the family at all, but just pines for her superhero days, BUT virtue signals so hard she can never let anyone know this.
You clearly don't understand what 'Mary Sue' is. It's not someone that has lots of powers, otherwise ridiculous amount of characters would be Mary Sues.
It's not about power, it's about LACK of weaknesses and vulnerabilities and usually even personality.
Jack-Jack isn't integral to ANYTHING, and does have weaknesses. He gets scared from the heights, he doesn't know how to CONTROL those powers, he doesn't just solve every problem just because he's great.
Also, I don't think male characters can be Mary Sues - or at least it sort of defeats the purpose, because the very REASON Mary Sues exist, is usually 'female empowerment' - writers are AFRAID to show women have ANY weaknesses, so by necessity, they become Mary Sues.
I am not saying there aren't male Mary Sues, I am just saying that when we look at the whole 'Mary Sue philosophy' and motivations, a male Mary Sue MIGHT need another name or term.
Not true. Also, why the slash and the unnecessary second 'equals'-mark?
Mary Sue is more than just being overpowered, otherwise, we would just call it 'overpowered'.
There are many overpowered characters that you couldn't describe as Mary Sues. Think about Superman, Beyonder, Galactus and so on and so forth. Very OP, not Mary Sues.
To be Mary Sue, it's not about POWER. For example, even Spider-Man could kick the modern star wars' Mary Sues' buttockses easily and not even break a sweat. They don't have as much power.
It's about LACK of things.
Mary Sues have NO weaknesses. They don't have to LEARN anything. They have no struggles, conflicts or problems, they don't have what makes someone charming, likable or human. Mary Sues rarely even have personalities.
The thing is, they have abilities WITHOUT having earned them. Technically, so does Superman, but at least he's trying to be humble, use his powers for good, and do good deeds and such. He has internal struggles, psychological struggles and even weaknesses, like kryptonite and magic. Mrxyzptlk has also been a pain in his butt quite a lot, and Luthor knows how to hurt him.
Mary Sue solves every problem easilly, just because she is 'great'. There's no explanation to her abilities and her lack of weaknesses.
The thing is, Superman can fail, Mary Sue can't. That's the biggest difference between someone that's simply overpowered and someone that's Mary Sue, even if she doesn't have that much actual power.
What about those that AREN'T interested? What do you have for us?
My point is, WHY word it so weirdly? Are you trying to soften it somehow, or be passive-aggressive in some way? What is this world, where no one dares to just write a simple, direct topic anymore, they HAVE to try to please the crowds at the same time.
Judging from that, I am firmly rooted in the camp of 'definitely not interested'.
So.. what now?
.. this show came from a place that's WORSE than the corporation the 'innies' work in, it came from the corporate culture it seemingly doesn't approve, but by praising this show, people are actually strengthening the very corporate crap this show seemingly mocks.
Oh, and the 'stairway' scenes make no sense. If it flips her memory back and forth just because she goes through a door, THAT is not how it would look, and why doesn't she immediately remember she basically OWNS the damn corporation and the building the second she's in the stairway area? It makes no sense that her PERSONALITY doesn't change, when she goes through that supposed 'surreal' experience.
It's supposed to be clever that we're shown it first from the 'innie''s POV, then later from the 'outie''s POV, but it doesn't work, because the personality doesn't change, and that's what this whole show has been telling us, that those two are supposedly VERY different personalities.
By the way, the less said about the demonic painting(s), the better. What the F is that thing, why would they put that in a TV show? I know why, but I want you to think about it.
Just like in Seinfeld, they just toss in this mystery and that, and never resolve it, because it's just so much easier that way than coming up with plausible ideas and explanations. So we get the 'won't eat pie' girl, the 'always wears the same shirt' girl, the 'no social life' girl, and so on and so forth. Mysteries are easy when you don't have to be bothered to solve them or come up with some interesting explanation to anything.
What's the point of dragging numbers around the screen for 9 episodes and then never revealing what that was about? "I thought it was a cool idea", I am sure some nerd says in the Goofiest voice possible, withot giving an inch of though to why it should be happening or what it could actually be causing.
Putting goats to an already masonic show with all the 'HELL', 'KILL' and 'DEVIL' names, and all that masonic checkerboard everywhere, is a bit.... OVERKILL, now, isn't it? Of course even this is not enough, we have to have an 'Eyes Wide Shut'-party in the end and everything is about BLOOD constantly - they even say that the wife somehow lived in his VEINS.
VEINS?! Has ANYONE ever, in human history, besides those Kubrick-parties, described heartache this way? BEING IN SOMEONE'S VEINS?! WHAT?!
Why would Dylan care that his 'outie' has a kid? If these really are completely different personalities, it would be 100% like finding out someone else has a kid you have never seen before and will only see a small glimpse of.
Why don't the people forget everything the moment they step in the elevator and change into the 'work-personality' again? I mean, if the memory is SPATIALLY DICTATED, shouldn't they forget EVERYTHING that happened in the outside world, including that whole 'kid scene' and all those 'overwork contingency' stuff (or whatever the term was)?
Alternatively, shouldn't the 'outie' remember the 'innie' stuff, since it happened in HIS HOUSE, if the memories are dictated by LOCATION, not by 'PERSONALITY'?
Makes no sense..
Yeah, great finale.. writing a great finale like this is easy when all you do is show us predictable clichés, but give us nothing useful or interesting. Irvin's G**-story is completely irrelevant, I can't believe they tarnish the dignity and legacy of Christopher Walken - I don't want to see him as a weak, old, wrinkly man with weak voice!
I want to remember him as a powerfully intimidating presence that doesn't have to speak loud to scare the fjord out of people, I want to remember him speaking softly-yet-with-power and making people wet their pants.
Now he just staggers and stutters along as a G** guy that falls for some other gray-haired old man without personality. WHAT?! Who thought this was a good idea?
Yet, we don't EVEN get to see what happens with this stuff. Irving becoming crazy at his door, banging and screaming is just so stupid. A man of that age should know better than to act crazy at the door of someone that can't know who you are and obviously has a fun life without you. What the.. (I know they're supposedly 'just babies' - the whole 'baby' theme has to be brought to everything, because it's basically emotional pr0n for women; women think about having babies and 'babying things' as much or more than men think about or want sex - but it makes no sense. You are not creating a 'baby', you have someone that has history, memories, skills and personality already, they just can't access a portion of their memories. This does not create a new personality.)
Great finale, when all you have to do is show us 'the people got to speak about their stuff a bit' and then it ends.
The whole wife-thing is just so stupid in any case, especially since nothing is explained. It's not good writing to not explain anything, it's easy. Let's just make a mystery and never resolve it - so much easier than actually having to build a world and motivations for everything 'mysterious', and to come up with explanations as to why things are happening the way they do.
Yes, 'amazing fnale', when you don't have to answer any of the questions this thing raises from the very first episode onwards.
It's easy to write an 'amazing finale,' when you don't have to actually EXPLAIN anything - explanation is hard.
What was the corporation doing, what was its purpose? Why did they fire the witch? Why would the witch be LOYAL to the corporation that just heartlessly fired her? Why would the 'security' even let her in? If a non-employee can just WALTZ in, then couldn't ANYONE? I thought the corporation was STRICT about outer world not being let in without tight control, but the guard isn't even at his spot most of the time. What gives? Wouldn't it make more sense if she realized how evil the corporation is and how she wants REVENGE, and thus her helping the protagonists?
What happened to the wife, if she didn't die in the car crash, and why? Why would she choose to be severed and YET work in the same corporation as her husband, if she goes to the lengths of faking her own death to avoid her (stalky?) husband? Alternatively, why doesn't she contact her dear husband, why would she let him believe she died in a car accident - is she a sadist or what? You can't have it both ways!
What happens with everyone's story, it was not finished! I was waiting to see the end RESULT of their hard work and my hard waiting through nine tediously plodding episodes that go nowhere for the most of the time. This is damn cheating!
The most burning question of all - HOW are you able to waste the audience's time for NINE episodes without giving us ANY ANSWERS at all? It's like almost one episode of 'worthwile' intrique and mystery, and nine full episodes of just useless filler (if you take all the useless shots, the slow-plodding sceneries, camera pans, the red herrings, the 'nothings' and the long stares and endless hallway walks, you could condense the useful stuff easily into less than one episode and then start giving us some answers in the second one!)
What bugs me the most is how non-personal Mark's place is. No posters, paintings, decoration, houseplants.. just DULLEST colors possible with the DARKEST lighting possible as well. What are these people, vampires?
The whole 'outie' and 'innie' disagreeing on things is pretty stupid. No one would disagree with their own desires, they would align. Also, the 'outie' making 'innie's life hell would ONLY make the 'outie's life hell as well, because they're the SAME INDIVIDUAL, they're not different.
It's one thing to want to slip notes to the 'other side' for yourself to read afterwards, it's completely different to have a delayed video discussion with ourself, where you DISAGREE with yourself and even threaten yourself! So ludicrous, it's stupid.
The 'outie' would FEEL the panic and distress, and want to quit the whole project. Where's the female intuition now? She would feel after work that SOMETHING BAD is happening at work and she would be scared to go back and quit the whole thing and demand her memory is restored and so on.
She would NOT threaten herself on a damn video call... or at least she could explain the reasons and whatnots.
The more I think about it, the sillier the premise sounds, like some bad adaptation of some ridiculous old sci-fi writer concept, like 'Total Recall' (which was more energetic and entertaining, though).
BTW, why is there so much "SLOW PIANO" in this? Does every modern thing have to be dark, gloomy and have SLOW PIANO in it? Can't there ever be color and energy anywhere?