Red Mosquito

Harry Lime wrote:

malice wrote:

Harry Lime wrote:

Malloy wrote:isn't it a total fucking bummer that people still equate narratives that privilege women and motherhood with being un-epic. jesus christ bros

Listen, I consider Mary's conception of Jesus to be pretty fucking epic. So leave Christ out of it.

you mean unfucking, right?

ahaha, oh malice. That's good.

girls have no sense of humor, bub. i was totally srs.

malice wrote:

Harry Lime wrote:

malice wrote:

Harry Lime wrote:

Malloy wrote:isn't it a total fucking bummer that people still equate narratives that privilege women and motherhood with being un-epic. jesus christ bros

Listen, I consider Mary's conception of Jesus to be pretty fucking epic. So leave Christ out of it.

you mean unfucking, right?

ahaha, oh malice. That's good.

girls have no sense of humor, bub. i was totally srs.

Oh. Oh.

surfndestroy wrote:

Malloy wrote:isn't it a total fucking bummer that people still equate narratives that privilege women and motherhood with being un-epic. jesus christ bros

My issue not yours but I hate the concept of privilege and the way it's used. I find it so victimizing and absolutely non-contextual.

two reactions

1. maybe i should have said "represent" in my original post. however, i think narrative is always privileging something. and, so, when the 11th installment of the Rocky or Die Hard franchise is released, i don't see it as victimizing (privileging) notions of masculinity, patriotism or individualism. those are simply the commitments of the film.

2. i'll rephrase my original post as questions, in the hopes of clarifying it and your response to it

why are films about women and motherhood necessarily "chick flicks"?

why are you privileging two aspects of the film--that it's protagonist is a woman and that she lost her child--over various other aspects? like, for instance, the triumph of the human will over nature? or creating meaning in what is at best an indifferent and at worst a hostile universe? or the meaningless death of an innocent person and its implications about the universe?

those are questions that our best philosophers consider, but because of some backstory and the gender of a character, this film, which is amazing (though I would do things differently if it were mine), is a "chick-flick" and has a small scale.

Malloy wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:

Malloy wrote:isn't it a total fucking bummer that people still equate narratives that privilege women and motherhood with being un-epic. jesus christ bros

My issue not yours but I hate the concept of privilege and the way it's used. I find it so victimizing and absolutely non-contextual.

two reactions

1. maybe i should have said "represent" in my original post. however, i think narrative is always privileging something. and, so, when the 11th installment of the Rocky or Die Hard franchise is released, i don't see it as victimizing (privileging) notions of masculinity, patriotism or individualism. those are simply the commitments of the film.

2. i'll rephrase my original post as questions, in the hopes of clarifying it and your response to it

why are films about women and motherhood necessarily "chick flicks"?

why are you privileging two aspects of the film--that it's protagonist is a woman and that she lost her child--over various other aspects? like, for instance, the triumph of the human will over nature? or creating meaning in what is at best an indifferent and at worst a hostile universe? or the meaningless death of an innocent person and its implications about the universe?

those are questions that our best philosophers consider, but because of some backstory and the gender of a character, this film, which is amazing (though I would do things differently if it were mine), is a "chick-flick" and has a small scale.

Meh. Sorry but I see it as a chick flick with a epic backdrop. In my opinion all the Hollywood saccharine they added after her moment of defeat on the first escape pad changed the movie to a chick flick. That does not invalidate the story's premise, questions asked or any philosophical meanderings you want to take from the movie. But it does change the movie into a chick flick set in space.

surfndestroy wrote:

Malloy wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:

Malloy wrote:isn't it a total fucking bummer that people still equate narratives that privilege women and motherhood with being un-epic. jesus christ bros

My issue not yours but I hate the concept of privilege and the way it's used. I find it so victimizing and absolutely non-contextual.

two reactions

1. maybe i should have said "represent" in my original post. however, i think narrative is always privileging something. and, so, when the 11th installment of the Rocky or Die Hard franchise is released, i don't see it as victimizing (privileging) notions of masculinity, patriotism or individualism. those are simply the commitments of the film.

2. i'll rephrase my original post as questions, in the hopes of clarifying it and your response to it

why are films about women and motherhood necessarily "chick flicks"?

why are you privileging two aspects of the film--that it's protagonist is a woman and that she lost her child--over various other aspects? like, for instance, the triumph of the human will over nature? or creating meaning in what is at best an indifferent and at worst a hostile universe? or the meaningless death of an innocent person and its implications about the universe?

those are questions that our best philosophers consider, but because of some backstory and the gender of a character, this film, which is amazing (though I would do things differently if it were mine), is a "chick-flick" and has a small scale.

Meh. Sorry but I see it as a chick flick with a epic backdrop. In my opinion all the Hollywood saccharine they added after her moment of defeat on the first escape pad changed the movie to a chick flick. That does not invalidate the story's premise, questions asked or any philosophical meanderings you want to take from the movie. But it does change the movie into a chick flick set in space.

thats insane.

The concept of "privilege" is victimising?

BurtReynolds wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:

Malloy wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:

Malloy wrote:isn't it a total fucking bummer that people still equate narratives that privilege women and motherhood with being un-epic. jesus christ bros

My issue not yours but I hate the concept of privilege and the way it's used. I find it so victimizing and absolutely non-contextual.

two reactions

1. maybe i should have said "represent" in my original post. however, i think narrative is always privileging something. and, so, when the 11th installment of the Rocky or Die Hard franchise is released, i don't see it as victimizing (privileging) notions of masculinity, patriotism or individualism. those are simply the commitments of the film.

2. i'll rephrase my original post as questions, in the hopes of clarifying it and your response to it

why are films about women and motherhood necessarily "chick flicks"?

why are you privileging two aspects of the film--that it's protagonist is a woman and that she lost her child--over various other aspects? like, for instance, the triumph of the human will over nature? or creating meaning in what is at best an indifferent and at worst a hostile universe? or the meaningless death of an innocent person and its implications about the universe?

those are questions that our best philosophers consider, but because of some backstory and the gender of a character, this film, which is amazing (though I would do things differently if it were mine), is a "chick-flick" and has a small scale.

Meh. Sorry but I see it as a chick flick with a epic backdrop. In my opinion all the Hollywood saccharine they added after her moment of defeat on the first escape pad changed the movie to a chick flick. That does not invalidate the story's premise, questions asked or any philosophical meanderings you want to take from the movie. But it does change the movie into a chick flick set in space.

thats insane.

Why? A lot of Clint Eastwood westerns asked big questions and included tales of mortality but that doesn't preclude them from being westerns. The way the latter third of the movie was handled made it a chick flick in my opinion. There's nothing derogatory in that, as there is nothing derogatory in calling a movie a western.

I thought the movie was good and would recommend it to people. If asked to give it a genre I'd say chick flick set in space. I think that gives a fair backdrop and preparedness for how the emotional story is told in the latter part of the movie.

What genre would you give the movie and why?

harmless wrote:The concept of "privilege" is victimising?

Of course it is. If you don't have privilege you are lacking due to nothing you've done. It has made you a victim to the fates of the universe. Assigning privilege to people says far more about the person doing the assigning than the person assigned privilege.

surfndestroy wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:

Malloy wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:

Malloy wrote:isn't it a total fucking bummer that people still equate narratives that privilege women and motherhood with being un-epic. jesus christ bros

My issue not yours but I hate the concept of privilege and the way it's used. I find it so victimizing and absolutely non-contextual.

two reactions

1. maybe i should have said "represent" in my original post. however, i think narrative is always privileging something. and, so, when the 11th installment of the Rocky or Die Hard franchise is released, i don't see it as victimizing (privileging) notions of masculinity, patriotism or individualism. those are simply the commitments of the film.

2. i'll rephrase my original post as questions, in the hopes of clarifying it and your response to it

why are films about women and motherhood necessarily "chick flicks"?

why are you privileging two aspects of the film--that it's protagonist is a woman and that she lost her child--over various other aspects? like, for instance, the triumph of the human will over nature? or creating meaning in what is at best an indifferent and at worst a hostile universe? or the meaningless death of an innocent person and its implications about the universe?

those are questions that our best philosophers consider, but because of some backstory and the gender of a character, this film, which is amazing (though I would do things differently if it were mine), is a "chick-flick" and has a small scale.

Meh. Sorry but I see it as a chick flick with a epic backdrop. In my opinion all the Hollywood saccharine they added after her moment of defeat on the first escape pad changed the movie to a chick flick. That does not invalidate the story's premise, questions asked or any philosophical meanderings you want to take from the movie. But it does change the movie into a chick flick set in space.

thats insane.

Why? A lot of Clint Eastwood westerns asked big questions and included tales of mortality but that doesn't preclude them from being westerns. The way the latter third of the movie was handled made it a chick flick in my opinion. There's nothing derogatory in that, as there is nothing derogatory in calling a movie a western.

I thought the movie was good and would recommend it to people. If asked to give it a genre I'd say chick flick set in space. I think that gives a fair backdrop and preparedness for how the emotional story is told in the latter part of the movie.

What genre would you give the movie and why?

I don't think it's derogatory (or I dont care ). it's just crazy to say it's a chick flick based on a few lines about a kid. is gladiator a chick flick too? that has more of that than this movie. the usual description of a chick flick has little to nothing in common with this movie.

group things properly,goddamnit!

it doesn't even star Matthew Maconawhatever! for fuck's sake!

surfndestroy wrote:

harmless wrote:The concept of "privilege" is victimising?

Of course it is. If you don't have privilege you are lacking due to nothing you've done. It has made you a victim to the fates of the universe. Assigning privilege to people says far more about the person doing the assigning than the person assigned privilege.

guys, let's keep this on a subject I give a shit about, please.

surfndestroy wrote:

harmless wrote:The concept of "privilege" is victimising?

Of course it is. If you don't have privilege you are lacking due to nothing you've done. It has made you a victim to the fates of the universe. Assigning privilege to people says far more about the person doing the assigning than the person assigned privilege.

Or systems of privilege. People aren't underprivileged by accident. Someone's always at fault.

what a lost cause this thread has turned into
edit: surfndestroy, your definition of a chick flick is all kinds of crazy. this movie isn't marketed as particularly appealing to women or to men- it's being marketed as a space thriller type movie. you think what you want, but it's not a chick flick simply due to the fact that you didn't enjoy the more sentimental hollywood type whatever is going on in the movie. it's what I can only assume is your own shortcoming in having to label it as such- in other words, yours mostly:

Assigning privilegelabels to people says far more about the person doing the assigning than the person assigned privilegethe label

I didn't necessarily see Bullock's character in this movie as a woman. I saw her as a human.

zeb wrote:I didn't necessarily see Bullock's character in this movie as a woman. I saw her as a human.

and in the end, aren't we all humans when you really think about it?

Some of us more so than others.

BurtReynolds wrote:

zeb wrote:I didn't necessarily see Bullock's character in this movie as a woman. I saw her as a human.

and in the end, aren't we all humans when you really think about it?

Not Sandra Bullock, so much. But it's a movie.

McParadigm wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

zeb wrote:I didn't necessarily see Bullock's character in this movie as a woman. I saw her as a human.

and in the end, aren't we all humans when you really think about it?

Not Sandra Bullock, so much. But it's a movie.

But she raised a Baltimore Raven. She's super human.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

zeb wrote:I didn't necessarily see Bullock's character in this movie as a woman. I saw her as a human.

and in the end, aren't we all humans when you really think about it?

Not Sandra Bullock, so much. But it's a movie.

But she raised a Baltimore Raven. She's super human.

She drove a bus over 55mph once.

I have another friend who is convinced Sandra Bullock is a man. She is the jealous sort.