573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Feb 17, 2019 3:06:33 GMT
Backdrifter: "you are really seriously wildly overstating the case."
Understating if you ask me. Look at how many of you do not even realize what's happening.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Feb 17, 2019 3:12:14 GMT
No doubt we will look back on this time with incredulity and future generations will judge us harshly. 'How could we so carelessly screw up the planet?', probably being the main one. They won't waste a second thinking about minor shifts in gender roles and expectations other than to laud those who set in motion the advances towards greater equality. From a previous generation, for example, the progress towards universal suffrage will be seen more and more as an important watershed, yet just a blip when weighed up against a century that saw greater destruction of life in the pursuit of political ideology than ever before. The acceptance of equality in gender/sexuality/race/faith and so on is maybe one of our only chances to avoid this being seen as an insular, destructive century. At least we might have that to set against our destruction of resources and the too slow reaction to that fact. I agree for the most part. But the way romantic movies are written nowadays is not a minor shift in gender roles. It's complete inequality. Movies from back in the day, like The Sound of Music had equality in character writing. So that era will not be seen as insular and destructive. Only the current time. |
|
19,797 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Feb 17, 2019 7:30:23 GMT
Don't bother auditioning for The Voice if:- a) You can sing in tune b) Your diction is good c) You don't go in for vocal acrobatics or shouting d) You don't have any vocal affectations (e.g. randomly yelping, changing the tune of a song for no discernible reason or deliberately mispronouncing words*) It makes me wonder what the coaches are looking for. I'm getting to the point where I just think "For God's sake, just sing the song as it was written, with none of these ridiculous gimmicks!" *There was a girl on tonight's show who I thought was singing about being addicted to loofahs. It turned out that she was singing the song as Addicted To Love! Little girl voices are my pet hate. I’m Australian, and on Idol in the 00s singers would often ape the pronunciation of Celien Dion. Now they copy Adele and the resulting sound is damn weird. Ah yes. ‘Adelevoice’ aka ‘the mo-fo effect’. Dont say more, say “mo”. Dont say for, say “fo”. lets put that all together; “I can’t take it any mo, don’t know what I’m living fo”. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 17, 2019 8:47:37 GMT
Queen were okay, nothing special. The attention they get is out of proportion to how interesting they were. Queen were one of the most interesting bands of the last 40 years - but not necessarily because of the music they made. I’m continually amazed that cultural studies scholars aren’t writing dozens of books about them - they’ve been a proper cultural lighting rod and continue to somehow get pulled into zeitgeist social issues even now. The way they continue to manage their image as a band to steer through changing cultural currents is fascinating. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 17, 2019 8:58:26 GMT
Don't bother auditioning for The Voice if:- a) You can sing in tune b) Your diction is good c) You don't go in for vocal acrobatics or shouting d) You don't have any vocal affectations (e.g. randomly yelping, changing the tune of a song for no discernible reason or deliberately mispronouncing words*) It makes me wonder what the coaches are looking for. I'm getting to the point where I just think "For God's sake, just sing the song as it was written, with none of these ridiculous gimmicks!" *There was a girl on tonight's show who I thought was singing about being addicted to loofahs. It turned out that she was singing the song as Addicted To Love! Little girl voices are my pet hate. I’m Australian, and on Idol in the 00s singers would often ape the pronunciation of Celien Dion. Now they copy Adele and the resulting sound is damn weird. I don’t watch The Voice, but Adele doesn’t have a ‘little girl’ voice. Are you not thinking of Ellie Goulding? |
|
2,340 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Feb 17, 2019 9:41:19 GMT
I love Grease the film. It's playful and romantic. It really annoys me that in every modern film, such as La La Land, the leading lady has to be feminist, has an aversion to romantic things, and the leading guy has to be goofy and submissive and can never be rude or say anything a woman in real life doesn't want to hear. The basis of every film now is "Change for your woman! That's cool". The part of Mia is written as a feminist character (but it is well written, at least it is written in a way her character arc makes sense, accepting that character trait is what everybody likes to see nowadays), but the part of Seb is one of the worst written characters in film history. First 3 scenes of him being a total asshole, then Mia is portrayed like the winner of that situation because something happens where she "wins" and the rest of the scenes he is suddenly a completely goofy, submissive, supportive, yet funny and masculine goofball. His character is basically like the beast in BATB. This given gets really boring and needs to change. Not every film has to be a romantic housewife fantasy novel where the man is dragged down to that level to support women's fantasies.
Oh dear.... Anyone else want to take that, I'm not sure I have the strength (Perhaps because I'm a feeble housewife, who needs to drag my man down to my level) Still, it is a great line that I am going to try to cheekily use at least once today in the real world |
|
2,340 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Feb 17, 2019 9:45:03 GMT
Whilst I’m here (and on the Beatles theme), Paul McCartney is a much better songwriter than John Lennon. McCartney was the king of the three minute pop song. Lennon's work deeper. Together they were the best partnership ever, both in the top ten greatest songwriters ever. But surely Lennon is, at least, in the top ever. Far greater solo catalogue. Has McCartney wrote a really good song since the Beatles? Not world class, just really good. |
|
999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on Feb 17, 2019 10:54:59 GMT
Whilst I’m here (and on the Beatles theme), Paul McCartney is a much better songwriter than John Lennon. McCartney was the king of the three minute pop song. Lennon's work deeper. Together they were the best partnership ever, both in the top ten greatest songwriters ever. But surely Lennon is, at least, in the top ever. Far greater solo catalogue. Has McCartney wrote a really good song since the Beatles? Not world class, just really good. I can't go along with that summing up of PM = 3min pop songs, JL ='deeper'. Their Beatles work was much more nuanced than that. I agree it puts them among the best songwriters ever. They both did some good stuff solo and some utter dross. It's a shame Lennon's final recorded work was such a load of tosh. McCartney seems to have had a boost and turned out some good stuff on his last few albums. |
|
999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on Feb 17, 2019 10:59:25 GMT
Little girl voices are my pet hate. I’m Australian, and on Idol in the 00s singers would often ape the pronunciation of Celien Dion. Now they copy Adele and the resulting sound is damn weird. Ah yes. ‘Adelevoice’ aka ‘the mo-fo effect’. Dont say more, say “mo”. Dont say for, say “fo”. lets put that all together; “I can’t take it any mo, don’t know what I’m living fo”. Yeah I can't stand Adele's voice, I find her unlistenable. |
|
999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on Feb 17, 2019 11:03:44 GMT
Backdrifter: "you are really seriously wildly overstating the case." Understating if you ask me. Look at how many of you do not even realize what's happening. No, we can absolutely see what's happening, ie that what you're saying is indeed overstated hysterical nonsense. But by all means, carry on believing you are the great visionary who alone can see what we can't. |
|
716 posts
|
Post by indis on Feb 17, 2019 11:31:34 GMT
Ah yes. ‘Adelevoice’ aka ‘the mo-fo effect’. Dont say more, say “mo”. Dont say for, say “fo”. lets put that all together; “I can’t take it any mo, don’t know what I’m living fo”. Yeah I can't stand Adele's voice, I find her unlistenable. same - that whiny singing makes me want to drive my car to the nearest wall every song sounds like the one before and on top of all that wailing voice , jesus, why not one happy song for once
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Feb 17, 2019 12:36:30 GMT
Backdrifter, let's agree to disagree then. You don't seem to care about the overstated hysterical nonsense going on in movie writing nowadays and the people having meltdowns over older films such as Grease and The Sound of Music. But hey, to each their own.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2019 12:43:29 GMT
I hardly think that a handful of people, on a niche message board, posting about a film in a thread called 'unpopular opinions' is exactly 'Meltdowns' or 'hysteria' but glad to see that's how you see women.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2019 12:47:37 GMT
Whilst I’m here (and on the Beatles theme), Paul McCartney is a much better songwriter than John Lennon. McCartney was the king of the three minute pop song. Lennon's work deeper. Together they were the best partnership ever, both in the top ten greatest songwriters ever. But surely Lennon is, at least, in the top ever. Far greater solo catalogue. Has McCartney wrote a really good song since the Beatles? Not world class, just really good. Well, I could just say ‘Live and Let Die’ and that would clinch it but, to make it a handful, I’d add Band on The Run, Let Em In, Coming Up and Silly Love Songs. Lennon tailed off drastically after Imagine; his mid seventies stuff is very poor overall, for example whereas McCartney kept up a good standard for longer. I have a habit of listening to an artists catalogue complete and in order and Lennon’s solo work is, to me, very disappointing overall. Personal tastes, however, so many will disagree. |
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Feb 17, 2019 12:52:00 GMT
Well, Hollywood actresses passionately giving press conferences, of which one was stating that Disney's The Little Mermaid is forbidden in her household and only the movie "Brave" is allowed to be shown to her daughter because she mistakenly convinces herself that Ariel gives away her voice away for a man, which is not true because she always wanted to be human, long before she met Eric, but literally stating that a movie can only be good if the female lead is a feminist, is quite hysterical if you ask me.
The reactions I read on Grease or The Sound of music are actually quite similar. But like I said, let's agree to disagree. If women want to present themselves as if uneven is right and it's ok for men to be portrayed as losers for the next 10 years and that self worth or good movies and story lines can only come from feminism and that every male line from a character has to support that in romantic storylines, that's fine, but I can and will have my hopes for better generations.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 17, 2019 13:06:09 GMT
Feminism is the radical belief that women are people too.
Any film made that doesn’t have that as part of its core ideology - its basic assumptions about the world - is going to be pretty rancid. And certainly not suitable for children IMO.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Feb 17, 2019 13:14:06 GMT
No, real feminism is actually equality for both sexes.
So why the frantically forced hype that men don't deserve realistic and well written storylines anymore and can only support those? Is that equality?
That is the whole point. Roles like Seb in La La Land are ridiculous and only support female feminism and have no other goal or personality. That is the opposite of equality. So you do not want equality.
Edit: If you don't want to be treated a certain way, the first thing you need to stop doing is treat others that way. Not every line or character line of a male in a film has to support the feminist story line of the female character as its only goal. Not doing this does not mean the core ideology of the filmmakers is different. You confuse character story lines with visions of the filmmaker.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 17, 2019 13:22:28 GMT
You don’t actually watch many films, do you?
Either that, or you’re just trolling.
Hmm.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Feb 17, 2019 13:24:16 GMT
We are talking about the way male roles are written in romantic films specifically. I watch a lot of films.
|
|
372 posts
|
Post by sam22 on Feb 17, 2019 13:36:25 GMT
No, real feminism is actually equality for both sexes. So why the frantically forced hype that men don't deserve realistic and well written storylines anymore and can only support those? Is that equality? That is the whole point. Roles like Seb in La La Land are ridiculous and only support female feminism and have no other goal or personality. That is the opposite of equality. So you do not want equality. Edit: If you don't want to be treated a certain way, the first thing you need to stop doing is treat others that way. Not every line or character line of a male in a film has to support the feminist story line of the female character as its only goal. Not doing this does not mean the core ideology of the filmmakers is different. You confuse character story lines with visions of the filmmaker. Women, please pay attention whilst Dave mansplains feminism to you |
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Feb 17, 2019 13:41:46 GMT
We are talking about the way male roles are written in romantic films specifically. I watch a lot of films.
Because the genre writes women so well...
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Feb 17, 2019 14:01:02 GMT
You don't want diversity in character story lines? Weird.
Wouldn't it be boring if every female character slams her man with a crossbow or a frying pan? That every female character needs a male co-star whose only task is to make sure her storyline comes off as feminist enough? Julie Andrews never needed this in her roles.
Anyway, I understand that it takes time to get used to new views when you hear something new that makes you question your old habits and beliefs, but girls, trust me, in time, movies will be more fun again when men and women are portrayed as equals again. It can be done, as it has been done before.
Ps. Thanks for that clip! It is just as funny as La La land, only their roles are reversed. I'm glad people on the board begin to understand it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2019 14:06:10 GMT
You don't want diversity in character story lines? Weird. Wouldn't it be boring if every female character slams her man with a crossbow or a frying pan? That every female character needs a male co-star whose only task is to make sure her storyline comes off as feminist enough? Julie Andrews never needed this. Anyway, I understand that it takes time to get used to new views when you hear something new that makes you question your old habits and beliefs, but girls, trust me, in time, movies will be more fun again when men and women are portrayed as equals again. It can be done, as it has been done before. Ps. Thanks for that clip! It is just as funny as La La land, only their roles are reversed. I'm glad people on the board begin to understand it. The fact that you resort to calling us "girls" really says it all about your attitude to women. I don't know if you are being serious and are completely blinkered or if you are just trolling, but either way it boils down to this: unless you have been a woman, it is not your place to tell women what feminism is, should be or how they should think. It's patronising and just plain wrong. So please, change the subject before you make it any worse, but don't be surprised if other members of this board continue to call out your condescenion if you don't. Personally, I've had more than enough of it and I'm out before you cause my blood pressure to skyrocket anymore. |
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Feb 17, 2019 14:15:47 GMT
I wanted to say ladies but I thought that might be offensive to some. Just kidding, to me there is actually nothing wrong with a girl or any girl.
Take it easy and watch your blood pressure.
There actually is a very clear description of what feminism is, and it does not apply to just women.
Denying what I describe and what is happening is actually very patronising and wrong. Also, trying to silence people based on their gender is even more patronising and wrong.
So watch your words carefully.
If you have a certain idea that it is ok to treat men this way, because you feel harm has been done to you in the past, or to previous generations, I would assume you would not accept that it happens right now too, but in reverse. Because then I would gladly ask you to let me know when your feeling of revenge has been achieved, so we can start the road to equality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2019 14:15:59 GMT
Let's give Dave props for one thing - he's clearly at least a *little* self-aware, otherwise he wouldn't be peddling his mid-twentieth-century-esque chauvinism in a thread devoted to unpopular opinions. If only all who shared his viewpoint were as aware that their way of thinking is on the way out...
|
|
