I was expecting him to cut to the mooning from Braveheart.

>> ^Beefpile:

Every movie on that list has a male main character. Why would they want to have scenes with women talking to each other that don't relate to the main character or his story? If they did, those scenes would be off-topic.
This test does not determine if movies are catering to men or women, it simply determines whether the main character is male or female.


The issue isn't whether or not it caters to anyone, romantic comedies obviously cater to women but they still perpetuate that weak feminine stereotype. The issue is that women are rarely portrayed in movies as actual characters. Men usually (at least in good movies) have multiple defining characteristics while a woman's defining characteristic is her gender. They serve as motivation for men rather than being actual fleshed-out characters themselves. I'm willing to give Braveheart a pass even with the film's existing historical inaccuracies since it's not like women were all that free in the time period.

Also, it's really disingenuous to suggest that the solution to this is to go out and make your own movies. If I don't like the job that Obama's doing, should I go run for president then? If I don't like my car, should I go make my own? No, that obviously ridiculous just as I wouldn't want to go and remake The Dark Knight or something just with my own additions. This video is intended to raise awareness of the issue so that the people who DO make movies may pay attention and change something.

Every movie on that list has a male main character. Why would they want to have scenes with women talking to each other that don't relate to the main character or his story? If they did, those scenes would be off-topic.

This test does not determine if movies are catering to men or women, it simply determines whether the main character is male or female.

One of the movies on the list was Braveheart. The whole motivation of the main character in that movie was his wife. We are reminded of this several times throughout the movie:
- when he avenges her death by cutting the throat of the lord who killed her
- when he dreams of her
- when he tells the princess of england that she reminds him of her
- when he envisions her in the crowd at the end while being tortured
- when Robert the Bruce carries her rag with him in the battle in the very last scene in the movie before credits roll

To say that movie has no female presence is absolutely asinine.

Thanks for the quality boost

In reply to this comment by ponceleon:
*quality for one of the best scenes in Braveheart, here made even better.

*quality for one of the best scenes in Braveheart, here made even better.

I really disliked this film. Terrible storytelling, weak characters, and an over reliance on CGI. It's the George Lucas Phantom Menace syndrome: Give a director a $200,000,000 budget, and they spend all their time figuring out how to spend all that money, rather than focussing on creating a worthwhile piece of art.

Johnny Depp's Mad hatter, whom gets almost as much screen time as the bland lead, consists of drag queen make up and an effeminate voice, which occasionally shifts to a Braveheart brogue. It comes across more as self indulgent mugging from an actor who has received no directorial guidance than any kind of actual insanity.

In Burton's earlier years, when his budgets were a fraction of what they are now, he told truly imaginative stories, with great characters and heartfelt performances. Movies like Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood and The Nightmare Before Christmas were cinematic masterpieces in my opinion.

The scene above is the precise moment when my disappointment turned to contempt. Issy and I actually turned to each other in the theater to verify that it was not a hallucination. (/disappointed fan-boy rant)

If you are reading this Tim Burton, here's your assignment, should you decide to take it:

Make a film for under 10 million dollars. You are not allowed to use your wife or Johnny Depp as cast members. The script must be original and not an adaptation of some previously existing work. Use models, stop motion, or whatever other effects you like, but keep the CGI to a bare minimum.

>> ^Simple_Man:
I'd love to see a video or documentary on stunt horses. How people get them to do half the things they do, without hurting the horses, is beyond my understanding.



I promise you that at least 2 horses were killed during the making of this.You can tell how they tie rope to there front feet to get them to flip like that just watch from the 1 min mark on and watch the horses front legs you can see the ropes.(breaking legs and necks like they were using another prop car)
I also remember reading somewhere that sometime before the making of braveheart there were international laws put into place to make film makers stop using real horses to do stunts, if they want to do a horse flip scene the have to use a dummy horse.

Im no horse activist i grew up on a horse farm and i HATE horses, but i dont hate them enof to watch them get abused like this.

I kinda fall on both sides of the fence on this one.

I don't know this show, but by the looks of the set and that it's just a 'via satellite' type interview, I would assume that it's a light sort of show, a fluff show... and so really isn't the place to be getting into stuff like that. Also the guy seems to be doing it out of some personal feelings he has over it, as if he doesn't think Mel should be allowed 'back in' to the world of films etc.

However

Mel has to expect it, come on... This is he first film (as an actor) since it all happened and so it's his first real time out there again... he has to expect it a bit... doesn't he? I can definitely see how it would piss him off no end, and for him he's lived with the repercussions for the whole 4ish years... to us, we heard all about it, and haven't really thought about it since then, so it seems like there is room to discuss it... I'm sure he's discussed it ad nauseum and has repented.

If this were an interview about him, about his life etc. then he'd talk about it I'm sure... but this is a fluff piece advertising the film...

I would be truly fascinated to be able to really talk and get honest answers from Mel in regards to the anti Semite comments... but you'll never hear anything other than what he wants to be perceived.

Which is sad, because I used to really, really like Mel as an actor, and loved Braveheart, thought his directorial chops were great... but I... I just don't know now...

This has been sifted before. I think the others were a different length and camera perspective though:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Russian-Hooligans
http://www.videosift.com/video/Real-Life-Russian-Braveheart-Two-Enormous-Gangs-Brawl

Hold!

HOLD!

HOLD!!!

*parp*



/braveheart

I think he's really just describing Braveheart. The scots were way ahead of their time, still are.

Funny side-note: the actor that plays the prisoner is King Richard the Longshanks from Braveheart.

Haha. What.. was Braveheart not available?

>> ^gwiz665:
Talks inside a completely fictional setting, like say the speech before the battle in Braveheart are a gray area, but in general if it's like one person addressing a crowd, I'm good with it.


first of: congrats, this channel was much needed. second: fictional characters talking? you should avoid it as much as possible cause - where the fuck do you draw the line, really? also politics - I mean, if it's politics, you know you can expect people talking, debating... so talks tag on politics is pretty much redundant in most cases

Talks inside a completely fictional setting, like say the speech before the battle in Braveheart are a gray area, but in general if it's like one person addressing a crowd, I'm good with it.