>> ^Krupo:

That'll buff right out.


Yup, you would know.

That'll buff right out.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

>> ^Tymbrwulf:
Majority of the women I know would only watch movies as entertainment occasionally and don't really call themselves "movie buffs." If you think there is an untapped "movie buff" in the female world you would think the movie industry would attempt to tap into it? (Chick flicks?)


Wow.. are you trollin' Tymbie? Or just thick?
Cause if you can't find the faults in that statement. I think you should immediately take some critical thinking classes.
Have you ever wondered why most women you know don't consider themselves "movie buffs"?
Female 1: "Hey the new Comic Book/Action/Eddie Murphy Comedy movie is out."
Female 2: "Fuck yes! I've been dyin' to see gratuitous explosions/shoot-outs/prosthetic fat all year!!"
And then, like some marketing executive from the 60s, you have gall to suggest that female movie enthusiasts truly crave to be spoon fed stereotypical bastardized depictions of themselves in films.
~~ written by @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/BoneyD" title="member since July 7th, 2006" class="profilelink">BoneyD - A lot of chick flicks would fail the Bechdel Test as well, btw...
Like real world women all are desperate love-obsessed delicate lilies that: need to reunite with their sisters and babble about romanticism. Or find a rich man so they can stop whoring themselves. Or reunite with their "mature" party slut friends and babble about sex.
I bet female movie goers find those films ultra empowering! =D
And on top of all that - deep breath - "chicks flicks" don't even begin to scratch even the bottom of any list or review of the most popular movies.
So what have we learned?
- Realistically relatable females aren't depicted in mainstream media.
- The niche genre for females depicts them as clueless whiny emo kids hoping some stronger, usually male, character saves them from their shitty situation/themselves.
- You find that's perfectly normal and don't see an reason why younger females shouldn't be raised to expect the same.


I agree in a number of ways with you regarding the way women are depicted in a majority of modern movies. However, the part that I think there are two big factors here that are being overlooked by you and by women who argue for more "realistic and substantive" roles for women in movies. First and foremost in my opinion at least is the fact that making movies is all about making money (again looking to the majority here, indie films are somewhat of an exception to this but then I think you'd agree that they are also largely an exception to this Bechdel Test). Since it's about making money, the unfortunate truth is that the majority of the target market for films these days is men, and what most of them want is the same mindless, formulaic story over and over again. If making films was primarily about telling a good, detailed and deeply thought provoking story, I think things would be very different. This just doesn't sell on a large scale and you'd have one hell of a time convincing the film studios of the world to begin shooting films for the artistic appeal and forget about the financial aspect.

On a bit of a side note to your point below,

"Like real world women all are desperate love-obsessed delicate lilies that: need to reunite with their sisters and babble about romanticism. Or find a rich man so they can stop whoring themselves. Or reunite with their "mature" party slut friends and babble about sex."

I agree that this is a very unrealistic depiction of real women. I would also contend that real men don't drive cars off ramps onto moving boats, or shoot anything that moves, or smoothly sweep any attractive woman off their feet with a few suave words. That is however, the image of men in the movies and I'd wager that it's not only the male population of moviegoers that enjoys seeing men depicted that way. And that's why it continues to sell...

My advice is... stick to indies.

>> ^Tymbrwulf:
Majority of the women I know would only watch movies as entertainment occasionally and don't really call themselves "movie buffs." If you think there is an untapped "movie buff" in the female world you would think the movie industry would attempt to tap into it? (Chick flicks?)



Wow.. are you trollin' Tymbie? Or just thick?
Cause if you can't find the faults in that statement. I think you should immediately take some critical thinking classes.

Have you ever wondered why most women you know don't consider themselves "movie buffs"?

Female 1: "Hey the new Comic Book/Action/Eddie Murphy Comedy movie is out."
Female 2: "Fuck yes! I've been dyin' to see gratuitous explosions/shoot-outs/prosthetic fat all year!!"

And then, like some marketing executive from the 60s, you have gall to suggest that female movie enthusiasts truly crave to be spoon fed stereotypical bastardized depictions of themselves in films.

~~ written by @BoneyD - A lot of chick flicks would fail the Bechdel Test as well, btw...

Like real world women all are desperate love-obsessed delicate lilies that: need to reunite with their sisters and babble about romanticism. Or find a rich man so they can stop whoring themselves. Or reunite with their "mature" party slut friends and babble about sex.

I bet female movie goers find those films ultra empowering! =D

And on top of all that - deep breath - "chicks flicks" don't even begin to scratch even the bottom of any list or review of the most popular movies.

So what have we learned?

- Realistically relatable females aren't depicted in mainstream media.

- The niche genre for females depicts them as clueless whiny emo kids hoping some stronger, usually male, character saves them from their shitty situation/themselves.

- You find that's perfectly normal and don't see an reason why younger females shouldn't be raised to expect the same.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

>> ^shuac:
Her's are just a list of seemingly-relevant points that rely on their simplicity. Who's to say having a character name is always a good thing? So what if women don't talk to one another in a film? Why is that such a good thing? Why is that the measuring stick? And so what if women talk about a man in a film. Perhaps that's what the story is about.
The lines she's drawn are very arbitrary.

Ugh, do you really need this explained?
What major/driving character is nameless in a film or novel?
In what society or reality do women not relate to one another?
In what society or reality do women only talk to one another about men?
The point is to make the public aware that an overwhelming amount of popular films either depict women as secondary, dependent superfluous characters or not at all.
I'll assume you're a white male.
Now imagine that every movie from your childhood, teenage years and current life have female asian protagonists.
Not just a few, not just a large amount, but every major movie is about a female jackie chan type main character.
All deuteragonists, tritagonists and extras are female too.
The only male characters you see are the worried desperate husband, the drunken hobo, the clueless nameless youth.
No male characters have major lines.
No two male characters talk anything other then their how they miss and need wives.
No males are depicted that aren't ripped half naked & constanly flexing to attract attention from the main female.
Now imagine all the little boys that would grow up without a Batman or Spiderman or Dr. Doom to day dream about.
Are you visualizing this world?
Because for little girls this [objectification, helpless ditzy stereotype, lack of confident/constructive behavior modeling]
is a persistent reality.


Majority of the women I know would only watch movies as entertainment occasionally and don't really call themselves "movie buffs." If you think there is an untapped "movie buff" in the female world you would think the movie industry would attempt to tap into it? (Chick flicks?)

This was before @Issykitty became the buff bodybuilder she is now.

Don't jump to conclusions. He could be a cop.

Cops these days are buff or fat sir... not gay shirty-mc-shirties...

>> ^burdturgler:

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Well, why don't you go to live leak?
Shudders at the thought
I was just replying to your veiled insult at my heritage.
There was NO insult intended at ALL!
First off, not speaking English is not an insult.
Secondly, I realize that I'm on a planet where English is not the primary language for most of it's inhabitants.
There's not much else I can say. If you knew even the slightest thing about me, you would know that insulting you based on your heritage would be the last thing I would do. Insulting you on your intelligence, now that's a different story.


My intelligence is at 0, I'm gonna need a buff for that. I seriously did not like the title of this video, but it could be my perspective or my frame of reference. I won't ask for my down-vote back, because I still agree with it.

However, I will promote it because of the story behind mines.

*promote

I also want to leave one last link on this video, pictures from Centralia.

http://www.poe-news.com/forums/sp.php?si=&fi=U10295&ti=1001985785&pi=1001985785

My only real beef is in how narrow the channels will get if you just keep allowing more to get added. I think all the major bases have been covered, and if any more are to be added perhaps it should be more of a something someone brings up in a sift talk type thing.

As for the scream channel.. eh, it really is something that's only going to interest certain movie buffs. I'm something of a movie buff, and I never even care when I see it mentioned in an imdb trivia note. *shrug*

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Yes! I could see him floating around in his stilsuit- putting small animals in his music box and lusting after a buff, shirtless Sting.>> ^KnivesOut:
Reminds me of the Baron Harkonnen from Dune.

I really enjoyed this movie, for me it was certainly one of the better independent films of 2009. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to fans of fantasy movies, although it's probably not for everyone.

There are times when it's apparent it's an indy film, but for the most part the movie achieves high production values. At no point did the acting make me cringe as so many badly made indy and B movies do. Those I simply can't watch.

Stormsinger is quite right when he talks about world building, and about the world co-existing 'just under the skin' of the real world we all live in. In this respect it reminded me of Neil Gaiman and his book Neverwhere and similar.

If you like the sort of fantasy movie which subtly suggests reality is not quite what it seems, that there is magic just under the surface if we could only see it, then this may be one you want to see.

There's certainly an element of the surreal to the movie, so I can see how it's reminded others of similarly surreal flicks, but this is not dystopian sci-fi, it's really more for fantasy fans that sci-fi buffs.

That'll buff right out

I don't know.

Between the two, Ebert was the real intellectual and film buff.

I don't know if anybody has read any of Roger Ebert's latest articles, but they're pretty damn good.

Related for you film-buffs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_fem_bensp%C3%A6nd

Castro played the same game as the players plotting to off him-

Canonizing Assholes:
Favorite past-time of the historically bereft masses of putties and imaginary history buffs...
...as well incessant recollections of the actions of political thugs. Who is a political thug in 2009??...Anyone who practices politics in the United States.

So now that we have this knowledge, one would be hard-pressed to actually find someone who gives a fuck enough to change the way things are done for and to society and the humans who are relegated to navigating it.