MovieChat Forums > Noufa > Replies
Noufa's Replies
Nah. That's not it.
This discussion reminds me of watching the Little League World Series. The international bracket often features a good team from a surprising location, like Germany or Saudi Arabia. Announcers gush that the sport seems to be catching on among a new demographic. It's kind of cool. Historic, even! Then it turns out to be a bunch of military brats from America.
That's not a bad thing. But can you see why fans might roll their eyes?
Meanwhile in China, "Wolf Warrior 2" grossed nearly a billion US dollars:
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/intl/china/yearly/?yr=2017&p=.htm
The Chinese film industry is booming. Let's not pretend it's some obscure, artsy-fartsy niche like Sweden.
EDIT: I should clarify; I haven't even seen the movie. I'm not criticizing it. I'm trying to answer snept's question. Snept seems to think the movie is pushing an agenda. Online movie reviewers are confirming that suspicion.
I still disagree. I think the story developed organically. It was a popular book before it became a movie. Hollywood is jumping on the bandwagon because there is a growing demand for movies with Asian faces.
Book took place in Singapore. A former British colony, it has a high rate of English fluency. And like most ASEAN trading hubs, it's dominated by diaspora Han Chinese.
Probably overthinking it on the studio motivation. Like anything that gets made into a movie, someone had the resources & vision to do it. I'm sure it's being overhyped by the low-IQ Buzzfeed types. There is something creepy about the subtle implication that an "underdog" is finally getting its day in the sun. Since when has China been underrepresented on the world stage?
Still, I'd much rather see stuff like this than lazy gender/race re-skins of classic stories.
I do some cooking but never had a sweet tooth. So it was almost like you were talking another language. Anyway, respect for the effort that goes into creation.
Well I'm impressed by your knowledge.
After typing that, I realize it sounds sarcastic. But I'm serious. Are you some sort of cake pro or something?
Companies are not moral entities.
They may take your side on occasion but do not confuse that with agreement. They currently advocate "diversity" because they'll get sued if they're found to be creating a hostile workplace for a protected minority. Don't get me wrong, there are "progressive" people working in most large companies. Just like there are devout Christians going back to when "family values" was the narrative.
All I'm saying is that government tends to tip the scales. Companies are far more responsive to government demands than the marketplace of ideas.
I'm a big proponent of retelling classic stories for contemporary audiences.
But if you believe the spirit of the original is dead, why even bother to exhume its corpse?
Wacky's right. The people here screaming "homophobe" come off like a lascivious movie producer accusing a nubile starlet of being a "prude" for refusing the casting couch.
You purport to be all about sexual liberation. But we can all see you're just predators.
It's even simpler than that. This was retaliation for Roseanne.
I'm not saying he deserved this. But Gunn had no patience for Roseanne & approved of her firing. I'm seeing screencaps of his "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" tweet all over the right-wing sphere of the 'net. The Trumpists were eager to throw that back in his face.
One less talented person making big budget movies. This sucks.
In all seriousness, I was surprised to learn that She-Ra is something of an icon for gay men. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. She's a lot like Lynda Carter as Wonder Woman or Julie Newmar as Catwoman; Amazonian stature but still feminine & glamorous.
Contrast with lesbian icon Xena. Still Amazonian but more butch & primitive. Basically, the lesbians are taking over She-Ra.
So I call BS on claims that the reboot She-Ra is less sexualized. She's more masculine.
Agreed.
It's a coming-of-age movie. I saw a lot of posturing from kids who weren't quite sure of where they fit in. It's common for insecure people to dump on whoever they perceive as outsiders. They get to affirm the idea of themselves as part of the "in group" & assert their superiority over outsiders.
This is exactly what Lady Bird did to the nuns. It's interesting is how the sister handled it. If Gerwig was making a point about politics, I think that was it.
This goes too far. I agree with the consensus that older parenthood is possible. Especially if the father is the older one.
But on this show, he is not older. And it's implied that they had their first kid in their mid-30s. Then another kid a decade later. That's possible but very, very difficult. I'd like to see pop culture do a better job of showing the difficulty. Especially the risk of miscarriage.
You've definitely tapped into something, here.
There was already some risqué stuff on Three's Company & Love Boat. The "Me Decade" was the 70s. So it wasn't entirely new. But like you say, it was becoming the prerogative of the upper class. It was kind of sad, TBH. Edward was basically Billy Madison. I'm not sure why we were supposed to respect him.
There was a lot of this in 80s sitcoms: Mr. Belvedere, My Two Dads, Punky Brewster, Webster, Who's the Boss? All of these shows featured unrealistically grounded children so that the adults could be as zany & self-indulgent as possible. It was implied that everything turned out OK because they were wealthy or at least upper middle class. It just rang hollow.
Don't remember her being chubby but I know what OP is getting at. She looked plain in Can't Hardly Wait, with the hockey hair & baggy clothing. Just saw today that she was nominated for a Tony. Recognized the name but she's so pretty, now. Came here to verify it was the same person.
Wonder if she was pigeonholed as the frumpy friend. Was a strong actress but her movie career never took off. Poetic justice that the Tony nomination was for the role of Eliza Doolittle.
"If you want to call human rights liberal, then go right on ahead."
Conservatives play this game, too. They usually characterize their line of thinking "common sense". And it's just as unpersuasive when they do it.
"Hollywood is far, FAR from a liberal bastion. There is pay inequality, racism, bigotry, and plenty of poverty just like in many other parts of our nation."
Strange that you believe liberalism is incompatible with these vices. You ever see Get Out? The white people in that movie are unabashed liberals. They use their politics as a shield while they carry out unspeakable cruelty.
"Much like any large mega industry, most of the people that make the decisions are ones that you haven’t even heard of."
We've heard of them. Harvey Weinstein, James Cameron, Bob Iger, George Lucas, & Sumner Redstone are all big-time Democratic donors. This is the crux of this whole discussion. Actors have always leaned left of center & I suspect they always will. Same way that farmers lean right. Nothing wrong with that.
But historically, this was checked by the moderate/conservative influence of producers. We live in a unique era where producers are pushing the talent tot he left. That's what the OP is getting at.
Silly post. There are millions of Christians in Los Angeles.
It's nice that the first 2 episodes are free to non-subscribers. So you can watch those before deciding whether to burn off your trial.
Though TBH, I don't see much else on YT Red worth watching. A lot of their stuff is just giving their most popular content creators their own TV shows. That doesn't work because YT creators aren't actors. They're more like DJs, in that they aim keep a broad audience engaged with topical humor for short intervals. More professional productions, like Cobra Kai, would be nice. But that will piss off their content creators.
Ye of little faith!
Too bad they didn't run this episode a week earlier, considering the holiday. Especially with it being that OTHER holiday, that would have been a fun teaser.
Have missed some episodes. Do we know for a fact that Mike is dead?
"In real life --- people often feel threatened by --- people with good reason, as they also did in the movie. The stakes in the movie were far more twisted and extreme, but real life runs along similar lines far lower on the spectrum."
It's so easy to fill in the blanks in the above sentence. I won't. But leave American people out & use your imagination. At what point does it cross the line from cathartic fun to inflammatory bomb throwing?
BTW, thanks for getting the ball rolling on an interesting discussion. I was so bummed by the loss of IMDB & thought nothing could fill their niche. Happy to be wrong.