This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Drop by and say hi! (Recycle Bin)
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Kristen Stewart's good looking, Twilight was a bad franchise, and hating on it become popular, that's why everybody jumps on that bandwagon.
Is it really a band wagon when it's a horribad thing though?
Post by
Azazel
Robbert Pattinson is one of the people that hates the franchise the most iirc.
Post by
asakawa
Kristen Stewert for example and also critize her looks.. it just doesn't feel relevant or justified.
Indeed. And with so much legitimate stuff to criticise, why fall back to that! ^_^
Gotta say Adamsm, that's not "film snobbery" if you're approaching things like that. That's just not liking certain actors and it will only ever lead you to miss good films.
Regarding Affleck directing - "Gone baby gone". That is all (yeah, Argo, sure, w/e!).
Seriously though, before the specific discussion on Sucker Punch moves on, it's a film
about
sexism in media, exploitation and feminism. How successfully it manages to tackle any of those subjects is
definitely
up for grabs but the fact that this conversation happened both suggests that it isn't particularly successful but also that more films (and other media) need to also tackle these subjects. Snyder was attempting something incredibly subtle but clearly is not a subtle director. I celebrate the brave failure.
Post by
Gone
Kristen Stewart's good looking, Twilight was a bad franchise, and hating on it become popular, that's why everybody jumps on that bandwagon.
Is it really a band wagon when it's a horribad thing though?
It is when most of the people haven't even seen the movies. And frankly, they aren't as bad as people claim they are. They are mildly !@#$ty romance movies,
designed for teenage girls
. It became a best selling series, and thus it became trendy to #$%^ all over it. At this point people %^&* talking Twilight out of nowhere is more annoying than the Twilight movies themselves.
Frankly there are a lot of just as terrible series that get less attention than Twilight.
Post by
Gone
Regarding Affleck directing - "Gone baby gone". That is all (yeah, Argo, sure, w/e!).
The town was better than both.
Post by
Adamsm
Gotta say Adamsm, that's not "film snobbery" if you're approaching things like that. That's just not liking certain actors and it will only ever lead you to miss good films.
Of course, good is in the eye of beholder...movies such as the Lake Placid series and Twilight show that.
Post by
Rankkor
I can totally see Sucker Punch becoming a cult classic in the future, the same way as several lame movies from the 70s and 80s did. I mean Suburban Commando is a TERRIBLE movie, but I love it, its so bad its good, and its clished cheesy attempts of humor are hilarious to watch.
Who knows, give it another 10 years and I may just warm-up to sucker punch and regard it as a terrible movie that is still entertaining, the same way I do with several classics like 1995 Judge Dredd, Suburban Commando, and a few others
It's funny this is super close to something me and Elura were discussing recently. I'd love to see a wider variety of body shapes in Hollywood films and especially in lead roles. But supporting that does not require putting down those that fit the current "norm" for those roles.
I am pretty uncomfortable with people talking about a sort of look as just not attractive. Not only is that not true, it's also an opinion no one asked for. To me, no one is too unattractive to ruin a movie for me, and it's a little weird that that's the case for anyone.
Bad acting can ruin stuff, but when people bring up Kristen Stewert for example and also critize her looks.. it just doesn't feel relevant or justified.
Also I'm pretty sure, out of everyone who hated the movie, you're the only one with a problem with the actresses LOOKS.
I agree. Though I kinda wish actors and actresses would be chosen on talent rather than pure looks.
The new standard is: Is s/he cute? hot? attractive? if yes, hired. if not, "We'll call you"
There's plenty of actors that aren't really that good looking and are still pretty damned talented. Woody Allen, Whoopy Goldberg, Danny Trejo (Ok I'm not a woman therefore I'm biased here, some women may consider him incredibly hot) Morgan Freeman, and a rather long list is there, of people I don't consider particularly attractive, yet they're very talented in what they do.
This is what the movie industry should be about, hire actors based on their capacity to act, not on who's the prettiest. When was the last time we saw a plain/average looking guy or girl get a major lead role in a movie? Cuz I sure as hell can't remember.
Emily Browning (She's the protagonist of Sucker Punch) is attractive, or at the very least, cute. Above the average. But based on her acting alone, I'd very much doubt she'd get that role if she wasn't.
Every cloud has a silver lining though, as Sucker Punch introduced me to
this song
which I've completely fallen for :P and through it, to the group, which is pretty awesome.
So thank you sucker punch ^_^
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
asakawa
There's plenty of actors that aren't really that good looking and are still pretty damned talented. Woody Allen, Whoopy Goldberg, Danny Trejo (Ok I'm not a woman therefore I'm biased here, some women may consider him incredibly hot) Morgan Freeman, and a rather long list is there, of people I don't consider particularly attractive, yet they're very talented in what they do.
You mentioned one woman and she is a comedian.
But still you're bringing things to "attractiveness" which is a subjective quality. What I'm interested in is variety. The women and men you meet in your day to day lives vary massively in their appearance. It would be nice for media to reflect that more than it does right now I think.
Post by
Adamsm
I can totally see Sucker Punch becoming a cult classic in the future, the same way as several lame movies from the 70s and 80s did. I mean Suburban Commando is a TERRIBLE movie, but I love it, its so bad its good, and its clished cheesy attempts of humor are hilarious to watch.
Who knows, give it another 10 years and I may just warm-up to sucker punch and regard it as a terrible movie that is still entertaining, the same way I do with several classics like 1995 Judge Dredd, Suburban Commando, and a few othersI think it's just too full of the cliches to ever hit the cult classic point.
Post by
Nathanyal
Glad I don't criticize movies like everyone else.
If I did, then I probably wouldn't have enjoyed Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter as much as I did.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
"Ugly" guys do have it a lot easier than "ugly" girls, that's for sure. And by ugly I mean not following the strict beauty standards of hollywood. I've gotten to a place where I might not be personally attracted to someone, I have a hard time as seeing anyone as unnattractive based on their looks and not their personality. Like, if you look like Emily, but you're a fedoraneckbeard from reddit, you're gonna be ugly to me, but if you look like, anything really, and have a decent personality, I wont even think about it. I think maybe I've gotten a little bit more mature, wuuuut.I don't think you can really say one or the other has it easier. Speaking as a former ugly guy, there are a lot of girls who are not as reserved as you.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
In Hollywood men definitely have it easier than women in terms of those who break away from the stereotypical archetype of beauty. In many aspects of life really. I actually just logged into facebook and came across this little gem. "Men age like wine, women age like milk." I wonder why he's still single.
However I will also say that if you take an untalented but attractive man and women, the women will have an easier time in Hollywood than the man.
Post by
Adamsm
Or the shrinking violet type, who needs the big strong hero to save them from the bad guys.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
It is when most of the people haven't even seen the movies. And frankly, they aren't as bad as people claim they are. They are mildly !@#$ty romance movies, designed for teenage girls. It became a best selling series, and thus it became trendy to #$%^ all over it. At this point people %^&* talking Twilight out of nowhere is more annoying than the Twilight movies themselves.
Frankly there are a lot of just as terrible series that get less attention than Twilight.
I have to say, I did see the first Twilight movie with my girlfriend and her teenage younger sister. The plot leaves a lot to be desired. The cinematography was nothing special. The dialogue and the acting were atrocious. Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart have no chemistry, mostly because Kristen Stewart has no soul, judging from her expressions (Robert Pattinson doesn't shower himself in glory either, mind you). It's also very patriarchal-sexist, in the sense that Bella is portrayed as a helpless damsel in distress, not helped by Kristen Stewart being unable to form any type of facial expression that doesn't fit that mould.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
asakawa
"Men age like wine, women age like milk."
To that I reply that men age like Mickey Rourke and women age like Helen Mirren ^_^
There's also a well-known gap for female roles in films. In their early twenties they are the love interest then they go away until they can come back as the love interest's mother. An oversimplification of course but there's a sad truth to it.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.