Found out recently that the US version of the avengers has an extra post-credits scene that the rest of the world doesn't get. Darn, if only there was some sort of video-sharing website or something where one could...Oh, I dunno, stream bits of video, so you don't have to miss these things.
The reason is because they were not produced by Marvel, they were made by FOX or Sony.
The films are still based on their IP and they are co-produced by Marvel as well. Marvel would probably have the full right to incorporate them into their Cinematic Universe. I simply applaud them that they choose not to.
Marvel was pretty unhappy with how some of their properties were being handled by other studios, so they decided to just start making films on their own and only sought out a major film studio (in this case, Paramount) to distribute them. When they started making their own films, they decided to make all of them connect and form something bigger than just a singular super-hero franchise like the Spider-Man and X-Men films had been. The problem is that they couldn't work out deals with the other studios to use the characters as companies like Fox and Sony had the exclusive film rights to them and didn't want to lose a cent on the possibility of a massive superhero crossover film, so they did not allow Marvel to use the characters. When Disney bought Marvel in 2009, they used their massive legal weight and issued an ultimatum that if they stopped making movies in the respective franchises for 5 years, that the rights would default back to Disney and the Marvel Studios, hence why there is suddenly more X-Men films being made and reboots of Spider-Man, the Fantastic Four, and Daredevil in production.
British English doesn’t use the female-specific aspect of this in an insult, which loses much of the mysogynistic tone. Indeed, it’s more likely to be used against a man, an exaggrated form of “wanker”. But “quim”, though rarely used, is done so in a misogynist fashion. It’s only used about women, and is very much about reducing them to their gender, as if that by definition, reduces their importance.
That is, without the shadow of a doubt, the biggest load of horseshit I've heard in a very long time. If you hollowed out a pile of shit of such implausibly enormous proportions, you could live there with all of your friends, or more likely, all of the people you don't like, since you would, in fact, still be living in a gigantic pile of horseshit.
Geez, all you had to say is that they're incorrect. Don't need to rage. And I'm sure you've heard worse things from Ron Paul supporters.
Without a doubt. But that doesn't mean I can't use particularly florid terms to describe exactly how much horseshit he's talking. I take a particular dislike to when people try to manufacture controversy.
Well you could always comment on the article telling the guy that.
Registering on the bleeding cool forums just to tell him off, when he'll inevitably ignore it? No point, I might as well just say so here, where he'll still ignore it, but there's less effort involved, and less likelihood of being pointlessly attacked by random idiots. I mean, sure, there is the valid point that it might be a bit sexist to call someone a whining cunt in that context, no matter what words you use - I say might be, because I haven't seen the movie, and thus can't say yes or no on that score - but he's making it out to be way more than it actually is.
Plus, If it's going to start an argument, I'd rather argue with smart people I know, rather than random people I don't, who are inevitably of wildly varying levels of both hysteria and intelligence.
Even if Loki did straight-up call Black Widow a "whining cunt" in those exact words, they've already established that Loki is a fucking sociopathic monster who wants to shackle the entire Earth and kill all who oppose him. Misogyny is the least of their worries.
Getting angry about Loki being sexist is like getting angry that Hitler was a racist. People need to accept that the worst villains are evil to the core, in multiple and myriad ways. Otherwise you're just pussyfooting around creating a villain that people can really despise.
Also, I saw The Avengers here in the UK, and there were plenty of women around. No one was shocked at all when those words issued forth; nary a gasp or murmur was heard. I don't think that word carries the weight he ascribed to it, here; perhaps the author needs to leave his bullshit castle to do some real research.
You should probably spoiler tag that. But yeah, that's essentially what I'm getting at. He's already a sadistic psychopath, I'm pretty sure being a sexist bastard is just one facet of his insanity.
Last Action Hero was total trash. If you are going to do a metanarrative that satirizes R-Rated action movies...
A: Don't explain the jokes. B: Don't rate it PG-13 C: Play it straight and never wink at the camera. Playing it straight and taking the whole thing seriously is the prime factor as to why Black Dynamite was so amazing.
Saw 3 made me want to vomit. Not because it was particularly disgusting (the practical effects were actually quite shitty, IMO), but because the film was fucking awful. Christ.
Saw 3 made me want to vomit. Not because it was particularly disgusting (the practical effects were actually quite shitty, IMO), but because the film was fucking awful. Christ.
I always thought Saw II was worse, but that's sort of like saying drowning is worse than burning to death.
The Avengers was fun. I would have liked to see Joss Whedon's imprint on it more, but it still showed through in the handling of the characters and his "signature move." Also, the after-after credits scene, hilarious.
The Avengers was fun. I would have liked to see Joss Whedon's imprint on it more, but it still showed through in the handling of the characters and his "signature move." Also, the after-after credits scene, hilarious.
Yeah, Marvel definitely kept his Whedon-ness in check throughout the making of the film, but I understand why they did it. They had to keep the Avengers stylistically similar to the other Marvel films if they wanted to keep their coherent, over-arching universe, so some things like Whedon's decidingly odd style of writing dialog would have to go.
I'm a bit confused about Banner saying his secret is that he's angry all the time. Does that mean that anger doesn't trigger the Hulk transformation in this film? Is there something hidden here I'm not getting? And why did Hulk go from raging mindless killer inside the helicarrier to sentient, in-control team member? There was no development in the interim.
I think he meant that it's always festering under the surface, and that he just has to let it out. Sort of like when someone does something you hate, but instead of making a fuss you just suppress it. The implication is that Banner not only does that, he does it with absolutely everything.
As far as the sentience:
Remember that the people that he was beating on in the Helicarrier were the people who triggered the transformation as a result of the fight in the lab (and thus the direct targets of his rage). As opposed to the invasion, in which the aliens were the subject of his rage, and it's possible that he'd be willing to strategize about that. Additionally, remember that he'd gone a very long time without incident before the Helicarrier. His sentience in Hulk form is likely contigent upon how enraged he is. Wikipedia: "The Hulk's level of strength is normally limited by Banner's subconscious influence." If Banner is so angry he lets go entirely, Hulk's going to be an aimless mess that fucks everything up. If Banner can subconsciously hold a goal and stay furious, Hulk probably stays sentient.
Even if Loki did straight-up call Black Widow a "whining cunt" in those exact words, they've already established that Loki is a fucking sociopathic monster who wants to shackle the entire Earth and kill all who oppose him. Misogyny is the least of their worries.
Getting angry about Loki being sexist is like getting angry that Hitler was a racist. People need to accept that the worst villains are evil to the core, in multiple and myriad ways. Otherwise you're just pussyfooting around creating a villain that people can really despise.
Also, I saw The Avengers here in the UK, and there were plenty of women around. No one was shocked at all when those words issued forth; nary a gasp or murmur was heard. I don't think that word carries the weight he ascribed to it, here; perhaps the author needs to leave his bullshit castle to do some real research.
Never try to argue that a sexist thing isn't sexists when it is sexist. Especially dont use the "it makes sense for the charactor" line in a movie as vapid as the avengers. It added nothing to the charactor, it was a bad call by Whedon. If he'd called banner an emo faggot there wouldn't be an arguement.
Ugh, I really have to go to sleep, but 'ere we go.
1) I was not arguing that something that is sexist is not sexist. Of course he was belittling a woman, and used a world bearing gender connotations to do it. I'm saying that the word he used doesn't bear the same sexist weight as "cunt" over here; it's probably more akin to calling a woman a bitch, as I understand it, which is also sexist, but you barely see anyone up in arms over that in the American film industry. Loki is just a sexist with some panache.
2) Don't give me that bullshit about the alleged "vapidity" of an art form or a piece of work being an easy out for why an evil character should not be thoroughly evil. Guess what? I do improv comedy. 30 minute pieces, all from scratch, and character development is the single most important element of our form. So you better fucking believe that character development is important to any 2.5 hour movie that intends to gross +$200m.
3) I'm sorry, does sexism make you squemish? Is that why this is a bad call? Good. Real evil characters are fucking vile, and the audience should hate them, and that's essential in a movie where the driving plot is ultimately "heroes triumph over seemingly unstoppable villain." Remember John Doe in Se7en? He was such a good, scary villain because he pushed all those buttons. Real villains violate all your ethical concerns, and using a sexist slur is the least among them. Hollywood needs more disgusting villains that ultimately get their shit wrecked. Writers take note.
4) You better fucking believe I'd note the use of "faggot" as homophobic. But, I wouldn't hold it against Whedon, because homophobia makes a person repellent, and villains should be repellent, ugly people. Unfortunately, the media probably wouldn't make a fuss about the use of that word, but that is an issue with the public perception of homophobia, not the writer's use of it.
Take a seat and learn to separate the use of hate as a character trait from the actual beliefs of the author, Christ. Good night.
While I think that having villains be bad people is probably a pretty good idea in terms of characterbuilding, and the Thor movie sort of implies gender equality isn't too great in Asgard, Whedon does have a bad habit of having his villains use misogyny as the "moral event horizon". Obviously I'm not a big fan of misogyny in general, and it's not my place to make a value judgement on this particular habit of Whedon's, but if nothing else, after a while it gets grating. We get it, he's a bad guy. Was co-opting actual, real oppression really necessary to make that point? He's already taking over the world/summoning a daemon/eating teenagers.
I suppose, but that taking over the world is just stock villain stuff that happens, it really doesn't get me to go "fuck that guy" because it's just ingrained into what a villain does. It's that little bit of extra detail that goes the way into making me actually dislike him, without it he is just boring.
Also since the scene really just boiled down to Black Widow playing him like a chump I can't really get indignant about it.
Comments
The other part about Loki with his scene with Black Widow and he refers to her as a mewling quim. Yeah, he's basically calling her a whining cunt.
Plus, If it's going to start an argument, I'd rather argue with smart people I know, rather than random people I don't, who are inevitably of wildly varying levels of both hysteria and intelligence.
Getting angry about Loki being sexist is like getting angry that Hitler was a racist. People need to accept that the worst villains are evil to the core, in multiple and myriad ways. Otherwise you're just pussyfooting around creating a villain that people can really despise.
Also, I saw The Avengers here in the UK, and there were plenty of women around. No one was shocked at all when those words issued forth; nary a gasp or murmur was heard. I don't think that word carries the weight he ascribed to it, here; perhaps the author needs to leave his bullshit castle to do some real research.
A: Don't explain the jokes.
B: Don't rate it PG-13
C: Play it straight and never wink at the camera. Playing it straight and taking the whole thing seriously is the prime factor as to why Black Dynamite was so amazing.
I actually liked the first one.
Also: "Puny god."
/nerdgasm
As far as the sentience:
1) I was not arguing that something that is sexist is not sexist. Of course he was belittling a woman, and used a world bearing gender connotations to do it. I'm saying that the word he used doesn't bear the same sexist weight as "cunt" over here; it's probably more akin to calling a woman a bitch, as I understand it, which is also sexist, but you barely see anyone up in arms over that in the American film industry. Loki is just a sexist with some panache.
2) Don't give me that bullshit about the alleged "vapidity" of an art form or a piece of work being an easy out for why an evil character should not be thoroughly evil. Guess what? I do improv comedy. 30 minute pieces, all from scratch, and character development is the single most important element of our form. So you better fucking believe that character development is important to any 2.5 hour movie that intends to gross +$200m.
3) I'm sorry, does sexism make you squemish? Is that why this is a bad call? Good. Real evil characters are fucking vile, and the audience should hate them, and that's essential in a movie where the driving plot is ultimately "heroes triumph over seemingly unstoppable villain." Remember John Doe in Se7en? He was such a good, scary villain because he pushed all those buttons. Real villains violate all your ethical concerns, and using a sexist slur is the least among them. Hollywood needs more disgusting villains that ultimately get their shit wrecked. Writers take note.
4) You better fucking believe I'd note the use of "faggot" as homophobic. But, I wouldn't hold it against Whedon, because homophobia makes a person repellent, and villains should be repellent, ugly people. Unfortunately, the media probably wouldn't make a fuss about the use of that word, but that is an issue with the public perception of homophobia, not the writer's use of it.
Take a seat and learn to separate the use of hate as a character trait from the actual beliefs of the author, Christ. Good night.
Also since the scene really just boiled down to Black Widow playing him like a chump I can't really get indignant about it.