Gaffer Tape

Moth3r said:

marioxb doesn't like PAL

I snarfed at the "they only had PAL film stock."

Warbler said:

Gaffer Tape said:  Which leads into a subsidiary problem:  sexualized females are deemed appropriate in movies marketed towards males and females.  Sexualized males are usually only deemed appropriate in movies marketed towards females.  That seems a bit odd.

I thought action movies were usually marketed towards men.   Do you think there were many women that went to see The Dark Knight that weren't dragged there by husbands and boyfriends?

Actually, yeah, I'm sure there were, as it was the biggest movie of that year.  In fact my (stupidbitchwhore) ex dragged me back there the same day after we'd already seen it because she had to see it again.

But I wasn't necessarily talking about action movies, even though that's the original point of this thread.  I was talking about media in general.  Male fanservice can spring up pretty much anywhere in anything, but female fanservice is generally relegated to female-targeted things.  But that's really more to do with men being too whiny homophobic to handle it.

Yeah, but if you consider Uhura's role in other Star Trek media, I found it quite odd how pushed to the forefront she was in this one.  I mean, she was touted as more a major character than Bones!  Not that it's bad to see Uhura actually do something, but I do get the impression (from that and the taking off her top scene) that they wanted a hot woman on the movie poster.

EDIT:  Or maybe I'm looking into that from the wrong angle, and maybe they just wanted a forced love triangle, and, digging into the Smurfette Principle, she's the only girl, so it had to be her.

Really?  I certainly do see it as a legitimate problem, and I thought the posts I'd made so far confirmed that.

Which is why I said "sexualization".  ^_^

I don't think anyone is saying that sexualization is inherently bad.  The problem is that it is universally done with females.  Which leads into a subsidiary problem:  sexualized females are deemed appropriate in movies marketed towards males and females.  Sexualized males are usually only deemed appropriate in movies marketed towards females.  That seems a bit odd.

It's funny and a bit refreshing that we (ostensibly a bunch of heterosexual males) are having this conversation at all.  I guess that makes us refined.  =P

C3PX said:

Kill Bill was unbelievable awesome! I always thought it looked like a dumb over the top action flick, but then I watched it and really enjoyed it. The camp is intentional, and the film actually had some decent emotional depth to it. I still maintain that Tarantino is style over substance, but his style contains a lot of substance, if that makes any sense.

Anyway, back to topic. I am very much on the side of TheBoost on this one. Female heroes are almost always sexualized in a way that makes it painfully obvious that these women are being written by men. Even from back in the days of Wonderwoman, all the other DC heroes were clothed from head to toe, it was the woman who showed all the skin. That ridiculous Catwoman is a perfect example of what TheBoost is talking about.

Another good example is the not so great film, King Arthur from a few years back. Keira Knightly, who I find to be extremely attractive, though perhaps a bit too thin, played the female lead in that film. She is well known for having a very flat chest, which I don't think makes her any less hot, but I have always kind of had a thing for smaller sizes anyway. On the American movie poster for the film, she has very large breasts. You can do a google search and probably find side by side comparisons of the poster used worldwide, showing her real chest size, and the American poster, which is obviously photoshopped. That is just really pathetic to me, that in order to get people to go see a film we fill the need to make sure her breats look big enough. 

Here, even went through the trouble of googling it myself. I personally think she looks just find in the first pic.

It gets even creepier.  Back in 2007 when Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix came out, WB tried to do the same thing to Emma Watson in its poster (and she was, like, 16 at the time).  People did notice, cried child sexualization, and Watson's, um, artificial enhancements were removed.

But, yeah, this is a good topic, and it's so true.  I especially do like the hypocrisy of Bat ass=bad, Lara Croft ass=good.  I would barely consider what Schumacher did to be for titilation.  I mean, yes, he does use the term "anatomically erotic", but that's more of a perception of the human form in general.  Like TheBoost and others have said, aside from the bizarre batass shots (of which there are, what, one in Forever and two in Robin?) there aren't any gratuitiously titillating shots of Batman.  He doesn't bend over.  There's no Bruce Wayne shower scene.  Like Rambo, Batman's and Robin's muscular bodies basically show that they're capable of being strong action stars.  But in the same film, Batgirl is given extremely impractical high-heeled boots.  Yeah, have fun fighting crime in those!

Actually, I'm fairly certain Noh is Japanese.  I say that from my college theatre major career, but I hesitate to say for certain only because the Japanese rip off the Chinese all the time.  Just thought I'd say that.  Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

xhonzi said:

C3PX said:

I mean, who wants a Don who is a Full House fan?

 Not me, that is who.

Now, if you could reveal that Gaffer's avatar has been photoshopped and that she's not really that good looking in real life... you'd have the vote and the "thrown" all sewn up, my friend.

Screw that!  My "thrown" is permanently sowed to my rear.  It can't be removed.

Wow.  I had totally forgotten I was so integral to the Full House thread...

BTW:  6,201 posts!  Why is that important?  Eh, it's not.  But I missed 6,200.

Whoa, C3PX, when did I say that?  And what made you put it as your sig?  Not that I'm complaining... just curious.

I broke the dam.

Ugh, what a sack of shit this list is!  This was just ridiculous!  People really need to get off their high horses and just believe that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.  And even when that's not the case... get a sense of humor!  As Avenue Q taught us is that stereotypes are based in truth.  Oh, and I loved how White Chicks, when it's supposed racism directed towards white people, it's still funny.  Well, at least they had the balls to put it on the list.  Shows they're not hypocritical.

But all that said, we need people like this to keep the balance.  You need people who see everything as racist and people who take everything in stride, and, somewhere in the middle, maybe you can determine what's really detrimental.

Okay, well, in that case, isn't sky using it like we usually do?  As in, restoring the film to how it originally was?

The sad thing is I don't even remember doing that monologue...

Nor do I recall which class or professor I was referring to...

Not sure.  If they're referring to "restoration" as restoring the original version, then I guess so.  But if they mean "restoration" as restoring scenes that had been cut, then I guess not.

Wait, what are we talking about again?  I think I just confused myself.

C3PX said:

Woooohoooos! 3PX now owns his very own Famicom! Another fine piece of history for my future video game museum.

Ooh, I always wanted  one of those!  There have been several times where I've almost bought one but then changed my mind at the last moment.

Wow, this thread scared the crap out of me!  I didn't remember it at all but saw a whole bunch of posts, ostensibly from me, but I'm not entirely convinced I ever said any of that.  Necroposting is horror!  O_O

The theatrical version that was supplanted on DVD with a bunch of readded scenes that did nothing but destroy the pacing and make the already long pod race even longer.

It's an inside joke here...  newb!  =P

I was actually unaware that Mary Sue had shifted to be so broad.  That's the first I've heard of it.  Frankly, the term that annoys me is Marty Stu.  Yeah.  We really needed to make a gender specific version of this term... what are, Spanish?  Mary Sue worked just fine for everybody.  Marty Stu just sounds stupid.

But I'll contribute my own:  PREQUEL.  Prequel is not any work of fiction that chronologically takes place before any other work of fiction.  It is a SEQUEL that chronologically takes place before a preceding work of fiction.  Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is a prequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark.  Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is not a prequel to Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

vote_for_palpatine said:

Despite Obi Jeewhyen's bizarre departure, he was usually a great poster on the SW forum. His penchant for the word "frelling" never grew on me, I'll admit.

I agree.  I was always quite fond of the guy.  Too bad things kinda exploded on that front.  I was quite sad to see him go.

EDIT:  Eh, and I gotta say, I don't really miss WESHALLPRESERVE.  Rereading his posts gave me a headache, as well as his penchant for declaring his age every other sentence.  I guess he'd be pushing 18 now.  Oh, and this argument was brought to you by a soon to be 24 year old.  Aren't I so amazing at math for someone so young? =P

Ooh, I want to be that guy!

Oh, wow, Walter Koenig's son.  May Andrew rest in peace.  And I wish for Andrew what you do.

EDIT:  Crap!  I had no idea he was Boner from Growing Pains!