Ahhh Pixar, you are just awesome.

They modelled the arrows flex in slow motion. Much geek love for that.

Another movie about empowering women, we just don't have enough of those.

>> ^renatojj:

Another movie about empowering women, we just don't have enough of those.


Indeed, we really don't. Especially when it comes to children's movies, which have a long history of sexist and patriarchal representations of women/women's roles. Here's a humorous take on a few of them:

http://videosift.com/video/Advice-From-A-Cartoon-Princess-Belle
http://videosift.com/video/Advice-From-A-Cartoon-Princess-Snow-White
http://videosift.com/video/Great-Advice-from-The-Little-Mermaid

Meh. From the trailers, it looks more like your average Dreamworks movie rather than another Pixar classic. I doubt it'll be as bad as Cars 2, but I don't have my hopes high for this one. Although I would love to be proven wrong, as I was with Tangled

@EvilDeathBee Everything you said +1 Pixar doing classic films, Cars 2 being crap, not having high hopes for this, it looking like a Dreamworks pic, and Tangled being surprisingly awesome.

You sir/Mam, have impeccable taste

@spoco2 why thank you kind sir. If my ideas intrigue you, perhaps you would wish to subscribe to my newsletter?

*Femme FTW

So is this the best way to remedy this? Make a movie measuring a girl's worth against her ability to do or better exactly what boys do?

>> ^hpqp:

>> ^renatojj:
Another movie about empowering women, we just don't have enough of those.

Indeed, we really don't. Especially when it comes to children's movies, which have a long history of sexist and patriarchal representations of women/women's roles. Here's a humorous take on a few of them:
http://videosift.com/video/Advice-From-A-Cartoon-Princess-Belle
http://videosift.com/video/Advice-From-A-Cartoon-Princess-Snow-Whitehttp://videosift.com/video/Great-Advice-from-The-Little-Mermaid

@harlequinn, you obviously have zero idea about what this film is about.

Hey, hey, hey! Calm down and let everybody jump to their respective conclusion.

Sigh, Braveheart without the heart...

I don't get why a female lead should be so controversial. I don't see any evidence that women are in any way a threat to male dominance in cinema.

Why does female empowerment bother people? Do they feel women should be subservient? Do they feel women are inferior and should not be glorified in cinema? Are they threatened by challenges to traditional gender roles? I don't get the conservative lizard brain.

Most films are focused on male characters: ex cia operatives, cia operatives, superheroes, starship pilots, lawyers, roughnecks, wealthy aires, adventurous lads, movie stars, pilots, news reporters, detectives, grieving sons, criminals, singing woodland crittters, spys, soldiers, cops, businessmen, farmers, swordsmen, insurance salesmen, vietnam vets, tap dancing penguins, even men playing female roles.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/movie/box_office.php

Enough with that witty banter. Fetch me a sandwich!
>> ^hpqp:

>> ^renatojj:
Another movie about empowering women, we just don't have enough of those.

Indeed, we really don't. Especially when it comes to children's movies, which have a long history of sexist and patriarchal representations of women/women's roles. Here's a humorous take on a few of them:
http://videosift.com/video/Advice-From-A-Cartoon-Princess-Belle
http://videosift.com/video/Advice-From-A-Cartoon-Princess-Snow-Whitehttp://videosift.com/video/Great-Advice-from-The-Little-Mermaid

So good.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, February 23rd, 2012 10:19am PST - promote requested by RedSky.

>> ^ryanbennitt:

Sigh, Braveheart without the heart...


Well, that can only be a good thing. I'll take Pixar over Mel Gibson any day. Braveheart is an awful movie.

...and then you find out this is a Taming of the Shrew sort of movie.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I don't get why a female lead should be so controversial. I don't see any evidence that women are in any way a threat to male dominance in cinema.
Why does female empowerment bother people? Do they feel women should be subservient? Do they feel women are inferior and should not be glorified in cinema? Are they threatened by challenges to traditional gender roles? I don't get the conservative lizard brain.
Most films are focused on male characters: ex cia operatives, cia operatives, superheroes, starship pilots, lawyers, roughnecks, wealthy aires, adventurous lads, movie stars, pilots, news reporters, detectives, grieving sons, criminals, singing woodland crittters, spys, soldiers, cops, businessmen, farmers, swordsmen, insurance salesmen, vietnam vets, tap dancing penguins, even men playing female roles.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/movie/box_office.php

I don't mind the fact that the protagonist is a female, but a redhead? BURN HER!!!

i think you all are missing the larger issue: YOU CANT SPLIT AN ARROW!!! mythbusters said so!

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Why does female empowerment bother people? Do they feel women should be subservient? Do they feel women are inferior and should not be glorified in cinema? Are they threatened by challenges to traditional gender roles? I don't get the conservative lizard brain.


It comes down to privilege. A dude who has experienced pop culture produced by men, catered to men, and starring men for as long as he can remember will see female leads, female-produced movies, etc. as a threat. It means they might be losing their privileged position (even though it's really still just a drop in the bucket).

And losing privilege is SUPER scary because it means that at some point these dudes might have to actually compete on their merits. I don't mean compete for anything specifically, just that all the power, privilege, opportunity, etc., in our society have been given to dudes (especially white dudes), for so long just because they're (white) dudes. If things changed and these guys actually had to get ahead by working hard and being decent human beings, a lot of them would be screwed.

At least that's how I see it. The movie looks rad.

^I agree. You can either see this clip as a young, independent girl trying to escape an arranged marriage with a group of potential suitors she does not have any great affection for.... or you can see this clip as a young smart assed girl going against her traditional gender role and beating men in physical competition. I guess it all depends on which characters you empathize with most.

Also, don't forget that conservatives grow hair in the weirdest places and they eat children too. Oh, and fangs, yep, they have em. Not that I'm a conservative myself, but people should know.

@hpqp Zero you say. Even though I've just watched this new clip and the previous ones from last year - you somehow "know" I know "zero" about this movie. Wow, talk about putting your foot in it.

Why don't you reread my comment and carefully think about it. You'll notice it is a question - I made no statements or suggestions, and it was not a rhetorical question.

You should also notice that instead of answering or addressing my question you suggested I knew nothing about the movie - an attempt to obfuscate or redirect attention away from the fact that you did nothing to address my simple question.

So, back to my question. Is it the best way to do it? I won't be offended by an answer - I genuinely want to know what people think.

>> ^hpqp:

@harlequinn, you obviously have zero idea about what this film is about.

@harlequinn, my apologies for assuming that your question was simply rhetorical, but concede that, since you give an answer to your own question (albeit slapped with a question mark), it comes off as very rhetorical indeed.

So is this the best way to remedy this? Make a movie measuring a girl's worth against her ability to do or better exactly what boys do?

And it's that "answer" that prompted my (dismissive, I admit) comment. This clip shows the main character shooting arrows better than the male contestantsy yes, but that is not the point; the point is, why is she doing that? Because she does not want to be married off; she is confronting the role of "princess to be married" because she wants to be able to make her own decisions about her life. I could go on about how women have historically gained rights by proving their worth in so-called "male" occupations (WWII anyone?) but I think the point is clear enough.

Thank you, apology accepted. Perhaps I should have worded my question as one sentence, the second question was only meant to refine the first question - text communication is an imperfect medium.

You raise a very interesting point. I believe arranged marriage in most cultures is equally unfair on both males and females since they are both under duress to marry. In this clip we can only assume the males are under duress to compete for marriage. If she is their prize, they are equally her prize. And there will be two loser's on the male side but none on the female side.

Is fighting tradition a good thing? Apparently arranged marriages stick together more than traditional ones ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage - just looked it up, who knew!!)

In regards to the female in this clip: Is the abandonment of feminine characteristics a good thing? And the adoption of masculine characteristics a good thing?

In this particular instance they diminish the natural advantage males have in physical activities (an undeniable scientific fact) and make a statistically improbable situation. In a warrior culture, males are unlikely to be this incompetent.

>> ^hpqp:

@harlequinn, my apologies for assuming that your question was simply rhetorical, but concede that, since you give an answer to your own question (albeit slapped with a question mark), it comes off as very rhetorical indeed.
So is this the best way to remedy this? Make a movie measuring a girl's worth against her ability to do or better exactly what boys do?
And it's that "answer" that prompted my (dismissive, I admit) comment. This clip shows the main character shooting arrows better than the male contestantsy yes, but that is not the point; the point is, why is she doing that? Because she does not want to be married off; she is confronting the role of "princess to be married" because she wants to be able to make her own decisions about her life. I could go on about how women have historically gained rights by proving their worth in so-called "male" occupations (WWII anyone?) but I think the point is clear enough.

>> ^harlequinn:

Thank you, apology accepted. Perhaps I should have worded my question as one sentence, the second question was only meant to refine the first question - text communication is an imperfect medium.
You raise a very interesting point. I believe arranged marriage in most cultures is equally unfair on both males and females since they are both under duress to marry. In this clip we can only assume the males are under duress to compete for marriage. If she is their prize, they are equally her prize. And there will be two loser's on the male side but none on the female side.
Is fighting tradition a good thing? Apparently arranged marriages stick together more than traditional ones ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage - just looked it up, who knew!!)
In regards to the female in this clip: Is the abandonment of feminine characteristics a good thing? And the adoption of masculine characteristics a good thing?
In this particular instance they diminish the natural advantage males have in physical activities (an undeniable scientific fact) and make a statistically improbable situation. In a warrior culture, males are unlikely to be this incompetent.
>> ^hpqp:
@harlequinn, my apologies for assuming that your question was simply rhetorical, but concede that, since you give an answer to your own question (albeit slapped with a question mark), it comes off as very rhetorical indeed.
So is this the best way to remedy this? Make a movie measuring a girl's worth against her ability to do or better exactly what boys do?
And it's that "answer" that prompted my (dismissive, I admit) comment. This clip shows the main character shooting arrows better than the male contestantsy yes, but that is not the point; the point is, why is she doing that? Because she does not want to be married off; she is confronting the role of "princess to be married" because she wants to be able to make her own decisions about her life. I could go on about how women have historically gained rights by proving their worth in so-called "male" occupations (WWII anyone?) but I think the point is clear enough.



Your answer contains a large amount of assumptions that seem to support my first point, and further underline the importance of media challenging the perception of gender-roles.

1. Arranged marriage is equally unfair in most cultures: half true. Firstly, in cultures where older men choose younger wives (e.g. Middle East), the men have a say while the women do not. Moreover, most cultures throughout history using arranged marriage allow(ed) the male to have mistresses (or even several more wives/concubines), but not vice-versa.

2. If she is the prize, there are 2 male losers but no female ones: Really? So getting married off to someone you don't care for does not count as a "loss"? This is sexist to both the men and the woman in this scenario, while contradicting your previous point about the men being under duress. Now it's the ones who lose that are deprived (of the "prize" that is a wife), while the princess "wins" because she gets a husband. See the problem here?

3. Is fighting tradition a good thing? Arranged marriages last longer: two main underlying assumptions here: "long-lasting marriage" is assumed to be a positive thing, and because arranged marriage relates to "tradition" in the first phrase, it is suggested that tradition is not all that bad. Of course arranged marriages last longer: most of the time they are relationships of dependency (particularly financial, but also psychosocial), and leaving such a relationship would often leave the woman in a very precarious situation (sometimes life-threatening). It is far healthier to be able to leave a loveless relationship when one wishes. More generally, ethical and social progress has always been made by going against the grain of tradition, the latter being the instinct to stick to what's known and familiar out of fear of change.

4. Feminine/masculine characteristics: assumption that such a thing exists, when they are almost all socially constructed. Question: what are the "feminine characteristics" you see being abandoned in this clip? Humble obedience/subservience? What are the "masculine characteristics" you see as being taken on by the character? By answering these two questions you should be able to see what's wrong with those assumptions.

The last paragraph is just ridiculous. Yes, men naturally have more muscle-mass than women, but that has no bearing here (and, generally, anywhere): archery is not about strength (the first contender is so strong he only pulls the string half-way) but skill. That you would see it - and combat in general - as typically male just shows how gender stereotypes are deeply ingrained over time. As for "statistically improbable situations", puh-leez, this is still a cartoon we're talking about, and heroes/heroines will always be "better" than the comedic accessories.

To paraphrase a close friend: the fact that we're discussing the feminism of a cartoon about an adventurous princess just goes to show we have a ways to go before achieving gender equality.

_{oh boy, I went on a rant, didn't I? Sorry for the wall of text!}

Firstly, in cultures where older men choose younger wives (e.g. Middle East), the men have a say while the women do not.

This represents a minority group. India represents the vast majority of arranged marriages world wide and it is arranged for both male and female alike.

Really? So getting married off to someone you don't care for does not count as a "loss"? This is sexist to both the men and the woman in this scenario, while contradicting your previous point about the men being under duress. Now it's the ones who lose that are deprived (of the "prize" that is a wife), while the princess "wins" because she gets a husband. See the problem here?

Yes, really. It's simply factual that the two male losers (of the competition) don't marry. They lost = they are the losers. She doesn't compete so there are no losers on her side. Furthermore, the males are trying hard to win (it's easy to lose just shoot an arrow wide). So they are happy to participate even though they are under duress. So no contradiction I'm afraid. (whether or not you "win" by marrying is up to the individual - obviously not true for her).

two main underlying assumptions here.....

I'm not going to make any assumptions about whether arranged marriage is happy or good or whatever. I also don't know whether they last because of dependancy or not - if someone shows me some data supporting that hypothesis..... A lot of ethical and social progress has been made by going against tradition - but not all. And tradition is not fear of change, basically speaking it is a social link to the previous generation.

assumption that such a thing exists, when they are almost all socially constructed. Question: what are the "feminine characteristics" you see being abandoned in this clip? Humble obedience/subservience? What are the "masculine characteristics" you see as being taken on by the character? By answering these two questions you should be able to see what's wrong with those assumptions.

They are not even nearly almost all socially constructed. Firstly there are differences at a genetic level (we are sexual beings) Secondly, testosterone level differences create massive difference mentally and physically that account for the majority of character differences.

The last paragraph is just ridiculous. Yes, men naturally have more muscle-mass than women, but that has no bearing here (and, generally, anywhere): archery is not about strength (the first contender is so strong he only pulls the string half-way) but skill. That you would see it - and combat in general - as typically male just shows how gender stereotypes are deeply ingrained over time. As for "statistically improbable situations", puh-leez, this is still a cartoon we're talking about, and heroes/heroines will always be "better" than the comedic accessories.

No, it's not ridiculous. Men are stronger, have better muscle control, and significantly faster reaction speeds. There are lots of studies showing this - go look them up. It's why we dominate all sports, even ones that don't require strength, e.g. archery, low calibre pistol shooting, golf, badminton, etc. the list goes on. It may be an animated feature but it is still a reflection of real people and real life - otherwise what would be the point of talking about any movie.

Anyway, you've made some very valid points - I can't spend any more time discussing this (too busy) and I'm sure it will be a great movie (btw - I have multiple female children and I'm raising them to be what I call "pioneers" and not "princesses" - so they can do everything the boys do if they want - and when they choose to they do - I also have a bunch of boys).

>> ^hpqp:

>> ^harlequinn:
.......
>> ^hpqp:
......


Your answer contains a large amount of assumptions that seem to support my first point, and further underline the importance of media challenging the perception of gender-roles.
1. Arranged marriage is equally unfair in most cultures: half true. Firstly, in cultures where older men choose younger wives (e.g. Middle East), the men have a say while the women do not. Moreover, most cultures throughout history using arranged marriage allow(ed) the male to have mistresses (or even several more wives/concubines), but not vice-versa.
2. If she is the prize, there are 2 male losers but no female ones: Really? So getting married off to someone you don't care for does not count as a "loss"? This is sexist to both the men and the woman in this scenario, while contradicting your previous point about the men being under duress. Now it's the ones who lose that are deprived (of the "prize" that is a wife), while the princess "wins" because she gets a husband. See the problem here?
3. Is fighting tradition a good thing? Arranged marriages last longer: two main underlying assumptions here: "long-lasting marriage" is assumed to be a positive thing, and because arranged marriage relates to "tradition" in the first phrase, it is suggested that tradition is not all that bad. Of course arranged marriages last longer: most of the time they are relationships of dependency (particularly financial, but also psychosocial), and leaving such a relationship would often leave the woman in a very precarious situation (sometimes life-threatening). It is far healthier to be able to leave a loveless relationship when one wishes. More generally, ethical and social progress has always been made by going against the grain of tradition, the latter being the instinct to stick to what's known and familiar out of fear of change.
4. Feminine/masculine characteristics: assumption that such a thing exists, when they are almost all socially constructed. Question: what are the "feminine characteristics" you see being abandoned in this clip? Humble obedience/subservience? What are the "masculine characteristics" you see as being taken on by the character? By answering these two questions you should be able to see what's wrong with those assumptions.
The last paragraph is just ridiculous. Yes, men naturally have more muscle-mass than women, but that has no bearing here (and, generally, anywhere): archery is not about strength (the first contender is so strong he only pulls the string half-way) but skill. That you would see it - and combat in general - as typically male just shows how gender stereotypes are deeply ingrained over time. As for "statistically improbable situations", puh-leez, this is still a cartoon we're talking about, and heroes/heroines will always be "better" than the comedic accessories.
To paraphrase a close friend: the fact that we're discussing the feminism of a cartoon about an adventurous princess just goes to show we have a ways to go before achieving gender equality.
_{oh boy, I went on a rant, didn't I? Sorry for the wall of text!}