Gaffer Tape

To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar (1995)

My former roommate gave me this for my birthday three years ago, but I never sat down to watch it until now.  It's... well, I can't say it's good, and, even though it's a positive portrayal of drag queens, it already feels rather dated.  The idea to have the characters constantly be in drag every moment of every day is ridiculous but also rather funny, but it does make me wonder if this would have been better suited for transgender characters rather than drag queens.  But it has a lot of heart, even if its story is pretty thin and hollow.  The real draw, though, is getting to see Patrick Swayze, Wesley Snipes, and John Leguizzamo portray drag queens.  Their performances are amazing and lift up a rather pedestrian story about oddballs shaking up a small town.

I'd say it gets mired in stereotypes, but at least it's even-handed.  Yeah, the small-town heterosexuals are clueless and dumb, but the drag queens are also petty and bitchy.  There are straight jokes, gay jokes, black, jokes, white jokes, Hispanic jokes, so it's all across the board.

Oh, what a little chicken.  Cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep!

Even though I recall you being involved, it's just as well you don't.  Epee under the bridge. :-)

TV's Frink said:

But he's right.  You're so focused on "racism" as a word that you're ignoring what he's actually saying.

Oh, geez, I'm sorry, but I just can't help it.  Last summer.  Olympics.  The word "cheat."

No offense.  =P

Really.  None.  Just thought it was too funny not to mention. ;-)

I'm sorry, but I just don't see this is as "can't please the Trekkies" film.  I love The Dark Knight.  I loved it so much that the first time I saw it in theatres, I had to go back the same day and watch it again.  I honestly can't imagine how anyone could compare the two.  To use a Trek example, if The Dark Knight is "The City on the Edge of Forever," this film is "The Way to Eden"!

The Meyers films, especially The Undiscovered Country (which I love) were military thrillers.  This... again, I just can't understand how the comparison could possibly exist.  The Meyers films actually were about the ethics of militarism.  This movie is just an excuse to have a big, Texan-drawling, black hat admiral with a big ship to fire at the Enterprise.  There's no moral quandary.  Okay, well, that's not entirely true.  It's presented in a completely black and white way, given the tiniest bit of lip service when it's first introduced, and then completely done away with to make room for more space battles and then never, ever, EVER touched on again.

And I'm right there with you with the philosophy of, "I don't care what changes they make as long as they serve a purpose."  I've been screaming that philosophy for the past four years now.  I guess the difference is, is that I just don't see them doing that.  The changes they have made have been mostly superficial in terms of ramifications and more just to get an acknowledgement out of old-school fans that they actually are doing something "different."  But it's to service nothing more than a gimmick.  "Oh, look, we blew up Vulcan."  "Oh, look, it's the exact death scene from TWOK, word for word, except we reversed the roles and removed all context and consequences."  In fact, until I saw this movie, I loved the destruction of Vulcan in the last film.  It gave me hope that maybe they'd have the balls to actually do something interesting.  But then, as I was watching that death scene in this film, it finally dawned on me that neither one of them means anything or services any kind of STORY.  All they can do is throw shock and awe at you, but without any context or themes or meaning, they just fall completely flat.

I should also mentioned that I also went in completely spoiler free.  I never saw a single trailer, I didn't follow any of the pre-release stuff.  Like you, I thought Khan was going to be in it but never bothered to confirm that.  But I actually had high hopes going into this one, that maybe, since they wasted two hours last time in another "nexus" plot that did nothing but justify its own existence, maybe this time they'd actually tell a story.  Sadly, in my opinion, I was wrong.

zombie84 said:

For shame, you got a terrific, fantastic movie that is the best thing to happen to the series in almost 20 years and people are disappointed. Good grief.

I dunno, zombie.  All I saw was a pointless, soulless, heartless film about absolutely nothing more than explosions.  I will give you the point that the cast is good.  They were good in the '09 film too.  But then again, they're written as nothing more than caricatures of themselves.  I'm not going to lie and say I had a bad time watching it.  After all, I was in a drive-in theatre, and that's just fun.  My first time to ever be at one.  But it was just a pretty forgettable experience overall.  I wish these guys knew how to tell a story, but they just... don't.

Well, obviously, that's the case, but if you can somehow work it into a way that fits in-universe as well, then more power to you.  Don't know why you'd want to ignore it if it still manages to work almost totally seamlessly.

timdiggerm said:

There are certainly parts of TOS that should not be held as canon by anyone. "United Earth Space Probe Agency", anyone?

I don't know about that.  Like the individual assignment patches, they still reference it in Enterprise, so apparently they were trying to make that fit in to everything else.

CP3S said:

Example:

Hey, it's me. said:

What I'm trying to convey is that not every character conforms to the sexist stereotype your alluding to. If you grow up and mature into an adult and are convinced through so called brainwashing as a child that women are weak and only care about flowers and shit then your a weak minded fool. Women are mentally and emotionally stronger than men are and that is a widely held belief in the UK. So bearing THAT in mind, what are you trying to say? 

One time when I was kind of young I was helping my grandfather put in a sprinkling system. I was in the market for a new BB gun at the time, and earlier in the day he had been explaining to me that a longer barrel means your BBs will go farther.

Hours later, we are digging holes in the back yard and installing sprinklers. I asked him another question about BB guns regarding barrel length and distance, and he responds that that really has no bearing on the distance and that how far it sprays is determined by the water pressure more than anything else. At this point, I was talking BB guns and he was talking sprinklers.

This conversation keeps reminding me of that.

Much like my little childhood story I just shared, the above quote from you has practically zero connection to anything Gaffer has posted, unless I missed a post or two of his.

I love this story.  Just wanted you to know that. :-)

I think it definitely strengthens it, yes.   But it's even deeper than that, as I've been saying.  It's just annoying embedded in our culture that certain subjects are for men and certain subjects are for women, and that presumption does, in turn, tint how we see those subjects.  But, what?  Are you saying that such a thing is impossible?  That men didn't go see Titanic?  That women (to use the example again) don't like Star Wars?  You want to say that it would inherently skew one way or the other?  Fine.  I already told you I can tend to agree with that.  But when you incessantly reinforce from birth that there's this huge us/them gulf, and that this is for them and this is for us, then, yeah, you're stacking the deck.  So please tell me what is the point in purposely limiting ourselves and our children by these kinds of labels?

Aaaand I'd say we're off the rails now.  How did we get here?

TheBoost said:

There's no hidden agenda. You're right. The agenda is plain to see and obvious.

Very nice.  I just wanted to clarify what I said in my last post because of this because I agree with you.  What I meant when I said there isn't an agenda, or whatever the hell I said, I'm too lazy to quote myself after I've already quoted you, is that there isn't a magic agenda or ruling that inherently makes something for males, for females, or for both.  It's just somebody saying it is, and that's just not a compelling enough argument for me.  And what I find fascinating about TheBoost's post is that it proves how cyclically entrenched people let it become.  Movie studio renames film because boys won't see a movie with the word "princess" in the title.  Boys won't see a film with the word "princess" in the title because films like that are only marketed towards girls, therefore they're only for girls.  And the cycle continues and becomes even more deeply entrenched...

Well... I'm a bit embarrassed.  You actually totally misinterpreted what I was saying.  Those were mostly rhetorical questions intended to probe into what you think, not what I think.  So it's kinda weird to read you telling me I'm wrong to think there's some rigid conspiracy when that's exactly what I was arguing against.

That said, I find it very odd (and telling) for you to say all that and then immediately decree that toys and clothes aren't examples...  Kinda what I was getting at in the first place...

Rather that than the Islamic idea of what a woman's place is in society. Western cultural norms may not be perfect, but you name me ONE society on this earth where women are treated as equals more than the west?

This may be true, but it's really a strawman argument anyway.  "We're better than the competition, therefore, we're exempt from judgment"?  Besides, I think you're missing his point.  Your example of Islam proves that people simply see things the way they want to see them.  These rules aren't inherent.  They're prescribed.  That's obvious considering they differ in different parts of the world.  They differ in the same parts of the world in different times.  Yet it's still met with a shrug and a, "Well, this is the way it is, and I can't conceive of anything different, and I don't want to try, and at any rate, it's still better than what they do over there."  Which, again, is the same kind of attitude that's held together every type of institution that we now consider to be barbaric:  slavery, racism, sexism, classism.  These people are just too different.  They can't hope to do the same things we do.  And besides, we like things the way they are.  They're comfortable.  So even though we've mostly done away with the concept of a ruling type of person, it still manifests itself both ways.  "Oh, well, a man wouldn't want to do this."  "A woman wouldn't want to do this."  "A man can't possibly understand this."  "A woman's not capable of this."  When you're constantly bombarded by those kinds of judgments, it does affect how you see what you're capable of.  "Oh, well, I shouldn't be a costumer.  That's a girl's job, and my dad's pushing me to play football, and my friends would make fun of me."  "Oh, well, I want to be a mechanic, but it's not ladylike, and I have to be pretty."

Hey, it's me. said:

Now obviously certain things will cross those boundaries where things can be liked by everybody.

Indeed?  How does that happen precisely?  Who decides what has managed to fit the bill for crossing those boundaries?  You make it sound as if it's just something that magically happens, that we have absolutely no control over it.  Or, conversely, that such things have to be purposely decreed to be so, as in, "We allow that this is just for boys, this is just for girls, but THIS can be for everybody."  Or that there are just some things that are impossible to cross those boundaries?  If so, why are they impossible?  Can they be possible?  Or do you just accept that your views happen to line up with the majority (or is it the other way around), and that's really all that matters?  Society has made its judgment and no other outcomes are possible?

Warbler said:

Gaffer Tape said:

Which part?  I agree that sex having an impact on one's opportunity for education is largely a thing of the past.  In fact, I think I read recently that women have now managed to edge out the majority of degrees or something to that effect.  But that really wasn't the point to begin with.

The point is that these gender-based rules you so cherish, at one point in time, very much did restrict opportunity based on the availability of education.  It was not until people began moving past that that the playing field began to level out.  Had we continued our way of thinking, never bothered to question it, just shrugged and said, "Well, men and women are just different," then it would have stayed that way.  And yet, despite proving how much we limited ourselves based on such preconceptions and how many steps we've taken to put an end to such things on ONE end and how much we pat ourselves on the back for it, it's amazing how people still draw a line in the sand and say, "Nope.  Gotta stop here.  It just ain't right."

 

Did you ever stop to consider the possibility that maybe there is something instinctual/hormonal/whatever  in men and women that make men more predisposed to liking things like Star Wars and make women more predisposed to liking Disney Princesses, and the same thing with clothing?  Please note that I am not saying that these instincts/hormones/whatever make it impossible for men to like Disney Princesses or for women to like Star Wars.   

 

No.  I stop to consider that there is maybe something instinctual/hormonal/whatever in INDIVIDUALS that predispose them to liking certain things, and that those traits, to a certain extent, fall in line with certain biological sexes.  I feel a lot of it is socially implemented and constructed, and you've actually admitted to that.  But regardless of the cause, that's rather irrelevant, and I don't see how it applies to what you're quoting, unless you're saying there is some biological predisposition that justifies women in the past not getting an education, the right the vote, the opportunity to hold careers, etc.  The FACT is that there are plenty of outliers, and what good is it doing them, or society as a whole, to limit their abilities, interests, and potentials through a de facto social bullying?  Maybe you don't agree with those expressions.  Fine.  There are a lot of things I don't agree with.  But what harm does it do anyone to be accepting of it versus the harm it does to suppress individuals the comfort to not fall in line?

Really?  You can vouch for the British that theirs has always been a society free of gender prejudice and limiting gender roles?  I'm not an expert on British history, but, and without malice, I'd say your perspective has provided quite a lot of evidence to the contrary.

Which part?  I agree that sex having an impact on one's opportunity for education is largely a thing of the past.  In fact, I think I read recently that women have now managed to edge out the majority of degrees or something to that effect.  But that really wasn't the point to begin with.

The point is that these gender-based rules you so cherish, at one point in time, very much did restrict opportunity based on the availability of education.  It was not until people began moving past that that the playing field began to level out.  Had we continued our way of thinking, never bothered to question it, just shrugged and said, "Well, men and women are just different," then it would have stayed that way.  And yet, despite proving how much we limited ourselves based on such preconceptions and how many steps we've taken to put an end to such things on ONE end and how much we pat ourselves on the back for it, it's amazing how people still draw a line in the sand and say, "Nope.  Gotta stop here.  It just ain't right."

Apparently my use of past-tense conjugation was lost on you...

Access to knowledge and education used to be very much "gender specific" to the deficit of women.  If we continued to maintain that "things are the way they are, we're too conditioned and ingrained, and change is scary," they still would be.

Well, it was inevitable.  I didn't even realize until now it would come to this, but I think it was certainly inevitable.  The fact of the matter is, I have never seen this show, but it has come up in my life a couple of times recently.  Confused Matthew talked about it in a video recently, which led me to research the topic a little bit, and then I just now watched SFDebris's take on it as well.  And by which I am referring to...

BRONIES!!!

That is, for those of you not in the know, the term referring to male fans of My Little Pony:  Friendship is Magic.

Now, even though this is a banner that, as far as I can tell, the fans themselves use with pride, it does carry a very negative stigma outside of that circle.  The word evokes, at best, a sad immaturity and silliness and, at worst, sick perversion.  Despite everything I've said in this thread so far about not caring about judgment, even I find myself somewhat hesitant to seek out this show for fear of that label being attached to me, which, quite frankly, surprised me.

All because a cartoon primarily intended for little girls has developed a substantial peripheral demographic.  Kinda like Star Wars but in reverse.

Like I said, this is something I've never seen or really had that much interest in, but I did feel compelled to try and find some background on the topic just to try and figure out for myself:  is FIM attracting the social rejects of humanity, or is the show itself simply good entertainment that manages to cross the so-called "gender boundaries"? 

To my surprise, I learned that the original show runner is a woman named Lauren Faust, who, back in my own childhood/adolescence, worked on a little show called The Powerpuff Girls.  Now, see, my original inclination was to be amazed that, perhaps for the first time, a clearly female-oriented cartoon was getting a male fanbase, and, as such, its fans are receiving the backlash for that.  But, let's be honest here.  The Powerpuff Girls has very "girly" overtones:  it focuses on young female protagonists and associated iconography:  stuffed animals, coloring, strobing hearts, and color-coded dresses, etc.  And yet, The Powerpuff Girls is looked back on rather fondly, and, I remember being about 12 or so when its popularity took off, and all of my friends were fans of it, and there was never any kind of question or fear among any of us that boys shouldn't be fans of The Powerpuff Girls. 

Now, maybe that has something to do with the "girly" elements being subverted by so many elements and nods to the superhero genre (or the other way around, really), while people assume a show about ponies is completely diabetes-inducing.  Granted, from what I've looked up, FIM seems to have quite a nice blend of action-adventure.  Also, Faust only worked as an animator on PPG.  Its creator was actually a male.  Maybe that has something to do with it subconsciously?

I don't know.  Any Bronies on the board?  Any non-Bronies want to weigh in?  What's the deal?  What do you think?  Are Bronies sad freaks who need to figure out what it means to really be a man?  Or is this the big, mainstream beginning to tearing down gender walls in entertainment that women have long since been able to cross freely?  I'm starting to find this somewhat intriguing.

EDIT:  Whoah, wait a minute.  John "Q" de Lancie has done voice work for this show?  And has compared the male fans of this show to female fans of Trek?  AND HELPED DEVELOP A DOCUMENTARY ABOUT BRONIES?! 

Okay, my mind is officially blown...

Well, see, that's my point!  Star Wars was "meant" for boys... and, hey, girls liked it too.  The world didn't end.  It's absolutely no different, but for some reason, we give females quite a bit more latitude when it comes to this.  If boys try to do the exact same thing, it's wrong and weird somehow?

Maybe so (see, not disagreeing with you!), but by that token, Star Wars has always been meant to appeal to 6-11 year old boys. 

(And growing up, I was into toy cars and toy guns, Power Rangers and Ninja Turtles as well... but also Disney Princesses.  Didn't really see why I had to choose one or the other... well, until I gave in to societal pressure, but I'm my own person now.)

You didn't answer my "why?". :-)

I'm assuming B is not awesome because you don't consider Cinderella slippers to be unisex.  So why are Darth Vader slippers not "gender specific" while Cinderella slippers are?

As for Bingowings's original questions, I would say that is equally awesome, although I'd personally prefer Ariel or Belle slippers myself.