This user has been banned.
I bet they went right for Howard, in order to calm the waters as quick (and reliably as you say) as possible.
I only added that “I don’t know for sure” because I’m tired of arguing here today. 😉
I think it’s probably too simplistic to just pin it on the number of applicants and the reason for that number being that they’ve not been motivated to apply.
But I don’t know that for sure.
Yay harassment!
By my count, Favreau is the twelfth white male to head one of these projects since the Disney buyout (fourteenth if you count JJ and Rian twice). Someone over there has to understand how this looks.
If 48 people came to Disney with pitches, and 12 were white men, 12 white women, 12 black men, and 12 black women, I hope Disney picks the 12 best pitches. True equality will be when no one even remotely considers physical appearance but rather how good they are for the job.
That being said, should the 12 best all happen to be the white men Disney shouldn’t be criticized. And considering white men make up the majority of the film industry (which hopefully will change), a more appropriate representation would be 35 white men, 6 white women, 6 black men, and 3 black women. In which case the probability of all best pitches being white men is much higher.
You’ve got it backwards. There will be no need to even remotely consider physical appearance after we have true equality. The problem is that you get a huge advantage by being a white male, no matter how good you are for the job. A minority (including females as minorities in this case) has to overcome more than just “how good are you?” They also have to overcome being a minority, something the white male doesn’t have to worry about.
There’s no way to know if the 12 best all happened to be white men, or if some of the best never were given a chance.
Ok fine, I say there’s no good reason. You’ve presented a reason, I find it lacking. So be it.
Lol.
Pretty much what I expected.
You linked to an article that said
There is no reason for Joi to be naked here
which is completely false, as I just pointed out.
Obviously “there is no reason for Joi to be naked here” = “there is no good reason for Joi to be naked here.”
You can claim that’s also false, but that’s just your opinion.
Pretty much what I expected.
I don’t think he knows the difference between HIV and HOV.
Reagan-era rule, making America great again. Let’s also pretend AIDS doesn’t exist again!
I assumed you were talking about someone else. So if you’re talking about Zoe…how is it stupid and inconsequential?
It’s stupid and inconsequential to you and it seems like that’s all you care about. And I think that makes you sound unreasonable.
If you’re trying to argue something different, I still don’t see it.
I don’t even know what your argument is.
Same. It seems to be “some actress seem to be cool with it (despite there being no way to know for sure) and therefore it’s cool.” Ok.
While yours seems to be “I don’t like nudity, and saw a movie with nudity in it.”
Lol, nice try. Yes, you don’t know what my argument is.
Nah, screw that. Explain the point the filmmaker is trying to make with the last scene of Joi.
…
Nah, screw that. I don’t care what you think the intent was. It’s terribly exploitative and “Blade Runner has a woman problem” seems spot on to me.
Which one do you actually want? You’re playing with my emotions here.
I don’t really care. Do whatever you like.
I know what gamergate is, and it’s stupid. I assume this is similar. A bunch of idiots attacking a bunch of other idiots, and some poor innocent person loses their job.
Ah ok so harassment doesn’t bother you at all then. It doesn’t matter if someone ends up having to move, in therapy, whatever, because it’s just a bunch of idiots attacking other idiots. Cool.
I don’t even know what your argument is.
Same. It seems to be “some actress seem to be cool with it (despite there being no way to know for sure) and therefore it’s cool.” Ok.
Nah, screw that. Explain the point the filmmaker is trying to make with the last scene of Joi.
…
Nah, screw that. I don’t care what you think the intent was. It’s terribly exploitative and “Blade Runner has a woman problem” seems spot on to me.
Cool.
You seem to be coming from a place of knowing about comicsgate and have particular cares about it. Handman clearly doesn’t even know what it’s about so it’s not fair to say he is expressing callousness to you particular concerns. You could say, hey the name sounds dopey but it’s actually something important because X reasons. Maybe he’ll agree with you or maybe he’ll have more contrarian views about it. You seem to be way overreading Handman’s post.
I don’t have a clue what comicsgate is, same as him. My point is that it’s uncool to just assume it’s stupid and inconsequential without knowing anything about it, and how it might affect some people that aren’t you.
Oh wow I just found out the director also did Arrival. A vastly superior sci-fi movie. Too bad.
Here’s another one along similar but more generalized lines.
http://theconversation.com/blade-runners-problem-with-women-remains-unsolved-in-its-sequel-85398
And that’s probably enough. There’s plenty more of course.
Found this immediately when searching for “Blade Runner nudity.” I’m sure y’all will disagree with it though.
http://curnblog.com/2017/11/19/nudity-blade-runner-2049-hollywood-gaze/
Oh wow what a legitimate news source.
News source? What are you even talking about? It’s an opinion piece.
Found this immediately when searching for “Blade Runner nudity.” I’m sure y’all will disagree with it though.
http://curnblog.com/2017/11/19/nudity-blade-runner-2049-hollywood-gaze/
But this is one of those things that’s stupid and inconsequential. Most actresses/actors have no issue with nudity, and I don’t see how a film for adults would do any harm.
citation needed
Halle Berry, Jennifer Lawrence, Karen Gillan, so on and so forth.
Oh wow that’s every actress, and none of them would ever have any reason to stretch the truth or even lie about it.
The last half hour featured (surprise!) another wholly unnecessary nude woman, which happened to be the most blatant example of all of them. Go ahead and explain why the giant Joi hologram had to be naked and not dressed in any of the clothes she wore while with K/Joe. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
I don’t know why you keep asking me to do this. Yes I have a perfectly good explanation. But you refuse to listen to any of my reasoning.
Also, I checked out the scene I couldn’t remember (the one where the prostitute gets out of bed naked) and it’s absolutely absurd that you think that shot is purposefully objectifying her. If you’re going to argue that the filmmakers’ shot composition is objectifying women, please actually analyze the shot first. The only way that shot is objectifying her is if you think the mere presence of female nudity is inherently objectifying. Which is totally fine if that’s your opinion. But don’t pretend that you think it depends how it portrayed, because at this point I seriously doubt that’s how you actually feel. Again, if you have a problem with female nudity on principle, that’s totally okay.
Honestly I have no idea how to respond to this, I don’t understand your point any more than you seem to understand mine, so I’ll just give up.