The Big Picture: You Are Wrong About Sucker Punch, Part Two

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

OK, so the movie is getting its panties in a bunch over Feminism and blatant sexuality in western fantasy...

Wut? Don't crap all over the good Fantasy when you're trying to crap all over the bad. That's what really got MY panties in a bunch in the end.

I wanted to draw similarities between this movie and Spec Ops: The Line, but there's too much of a difference. Spec Ops actually had something worthwhile and thought-provoking to say. This, movie, not so much.

The problem with trying to lampoon an ignorant group of people with satire is that they often misunderstand this satire as a tacit approval of their thoughts and actions. If these people could be reached through clever appeals, logic, or humor, I doubt there would be any Chris Browns or Michael Fassbenders in the world.

Unfortunately, they can't because people that think its okay to hurt or dehumanize other people usually aren't particularly intelligent, or they willfully neglect to use their intellect because of the benefits they reap from their male privilege.

Sucker Punch, however lofty its intentions, only served as a big budget reinforcement of sexism precisely because its "feminist message" was hidden beneath layers of subtext and film school artistic mumbo-jumbo.

MovieBob:
You Are Wrong About Sucker Punch, Part Two

Spoilers abound in this week's finale to Bob's retrospective on Sucker Punch.

Watch Video

I sit with most of what you said, even liked it because of most that, but there's something in the ending you might have overlooked. Even taking the idea that all of the ideas here are feminist in nature, and that the potential fourth wave has to see the third wave fail before it can get it's feet, there's something some would call out--it is only through the help of the kind man that she has any hope, and some could (and have) said that this was an idea in the film that women can't do it alone.

Whether or not this is a bad thing, a good thing, true, or false is up to the person, however. You could take it either as a "women need to get men on their side against other men" stance, or a "even as an equal, we still need men, so we're not equal" one. That he shows up continuously as a guiding figure only strengthens the argument, that women always need the help of men. That was the argument I didn't have a refutation for.

all i can say is, that movie bob is a bit of a genius and Jack Snyder may be one as well.

Aaron Sylvester:

mfeff:
This seems close to the concept known as hypoagency, specifically female hypoagency; simple "one agency" when in a situation with many agents/actors/people.

I am eternally thankful to you for finding this video.

It really opened my eyes as to the reasons behind...well, pretty much EVERYTHING that has been happening in the past few months/years regarding women in movies/games.

I wasted so much time and effort in these forums battling it out against females who were heavily into topics such as Sexism in Gaming and Tropes vs Women - I kept saying so much stuff but I never truly understood the root of the message I was trying to get across.
I failed to see the ultimate reason behind why certain females around the internet have been acting in such a way.

I was actually aware of female hypoagency (had read some stuff about it) but I knew that mentioning it in arguments would get the females even angrier, and at the time it sounded more like a theory than anything solid.

But the lady in that video opened my eyes with in-depth explanations and irrefutable proof. I will no longer need to battle or argue with females in these forums (and other forums) because...the whole topic is more or less irrelevant and pointless to begin with, I know the underlying root of the female subconcious and why they act the way they act!

WOOT.

Hey your welcome, glad you got something out of it. To be clear hypoagency is not a theory that is exclusive to gender. It is simply a strategy that one may expect to see with "agents" that are in one way or another weaker and are weighing the cost/benefit of direct/indirect action in a situation.

That is, chosen such as in a game, subconscious such as in a threatening situation, or as a manifested phenomena of biological evolution, that is, because it is.

Manipulation and deceit require tremendous caloric resources to pull off, so what we tend to see, "I think", is a long term strategic pay-off or increased efficiency at executing a hypoagent program. Thing is this stuff really isn't all that new, almost all the analytic psychologist and evolutionary biologist have been discussing it in one form or another longer than steam. Buddhist philosophy discussed it quite openly and as early as 500~400 B.C.

It's a difficult subject for most due to the consequences of utility and the additional pressures which it places on a situation. There are many "feedback" loops that present themselves in these studies.

See, if someone your debating perceives that they are being challenged on the subject it undermines the hypoagency paradigm, and as such, the conversation may become or escalate to an emotional level quite quickly. This may be explained as the person utilizing hypoagency to a greater degree to further manipulate the object (person they are debating) into changing his or her tune to suit the hypo-agent's goals.

That is to say that exposing the manipulation and indirectness of the person to that person often encourages that person to "do it more", not "less". A synonym for the hypoagent is simply one who is "self centered". That is, only recognizes the validity of the one self and likely reduces all other external selves into "objects" to be manipulated to make that "self center" more comfortable.

It's pretty straight forward. Not worth arguing about really.

On the topic of the video game and media stuff, I say what I have always said since day 1.

You don't like something, learn to write software and make your own game. Feel free to borrow all my books on C++ and compilers... here is a stack of mathematics books all the way up to multivariate differential calculus. Enjoy!

That is to say, I seek to "empower" people to become self determinate movers in life, and discourage people from trying to manipulate others into "doing" things that suit them specifically. This is specifically what the video addresses, the inherent fallacy of large segments of the feminist movement. The mis-attribution of agency.

Who is supposed to be doing the work? You and I probably a lot a like... I'll help someone do something but I won't be cajoled into being someone else's pack mule so it's more convenient on them... I got a wife.

I call it the Jimmy Carter principle.

Keep it simple. Nutnfancy.

Never saw the film in the first place. This deconstruction probably was more enjoyable for me than the film itself would have been.

Bravo Bob.

Will probably get to see it at some point, although my wife is unlikely to believe me when I tell her is not for the hot chicks.

But this doesnīt really change the fact that the movie was incredibly boring and poorly written/acted :p. Personally i donīt know anyone who hated this movie because of sexism, only people who hated it because it didnīt work on various levels. Because of that i find it hard to see the point in these videos, but thatīs just me and my opinion ofcourse. If everyone explicitly hated it because of sexism, then it would make sense to me.

Some of this analysis comes off more like "liking the message, then trying to save the messenger when no one else does." The movie, in my humble opinion, just didn't work, and so while the message might be one that should be addressed, it needed a better story than this.

And Sucker Punch's ending makes no sense. Even after your analysis, it just doesn't make sense from either a story-telling vantage point or an arthouse messaging standpoint. Seriously, focusing a story on one character for nine-tenths of the movie and then proclaiming "not this character's story?" That's not a twist. That's just stupid.

But... the premise is still wrong. It's not that the film was misunderstood, it's that it was a hypocritical attempt to extort half a billion dollars out of the same nerds it was meant to criticise by making the whole film into an extended cut of basically that one scene in Watchmen where Hollis Mason reverts to a superhero fantasy as he's brutalized. Just with hot chicks.

It's not that Snyder didn't "stick the landing" by being unable to elevate his eye candy above the source material, it's that he was selling the movie based on the eye candy, and when his play was called out as hypocritical and artistically bankrupt he and his movie did not have a valid comeback.

It's different in Basterds, where the murder of Hitler immediately pays off by revealing to the audience what an empowerment fantasy the whole WWII war film genre is. That's not obscured, if you want to read the film as an empowerment fantasy, you can go ahead and do that. It's not a capital sin to enjoy escapism, and Tarantino is not making that point. When Robert Rodriguez hides racial jabs at the US in his abuse of stereotype he is not criticising the action schlock he's producing, but something entirely different.

But Sucker Punch? Eh, that's complaining about objectifying women by objectifying women in hopes that the people its chastising will be dumb enough to enjoy the top layer of the film (which is poorly constructed, granted) while being challenged, to put it modestly, about the underlying implications. And be it because the film is bad or because the audience is not quite as stupid as Snyder hoped, it blew up on his face. Certainly most critics saw that.

Also, I'm always annoyed by discussions about what is "real" in any given story. Obviously the first layer of fictionalization is the film itself, which is made by shooting actors who pretend to be in these situations. The answer to "what is the real world" is always "that's the one in which you're sitting down watching a movie". That's why it never mattered in Inception whether that top spins or not, because it's always just a movie and the meaning of redemption in the last scene is not more authentic in any layer of storytelling than in any other.

It's also why Total Recall (the original) wasn't a very good film despite Verhoeven doing his usual "I'm more intelligent than you" routine, which I've never appreciated for many of the same reasons I don't appreciate Sucker Punch.

mfeff:
On the topic of the video game and media stuff, I say what I have always said since day 1.

You don't like something, learn to write software and make your own game. Feel free to borrow all my books on C++ and compilers... here is a stack of mathematics books all the way up to multivariate differential calculus. Enjoy!

That is to say, I seek to "empower" people to become self determinate movers in life, and discourage people from trying to manipulate others into "doing" things that suit them specifically. This is specifically what the video addresses, the inherent fallacy of large segments of the feminist movement. The mis-attribution of agency.

Who is supposed to be doing the work? You and I probably a lot a like... I'll help someone do something but I won't be cajoled into being someone else's pack mule so it's more convenient on them... I got a wife.

I call it the Jimmy Carter principle.

Keep it simple. Nutnfancy.

It's incredible, I have been saying the same thing since the very beginning - but sadly I wasn't able to properly word my stuff and was constantly bashed by females :(
The discussions went something like this:
> Me: Something like 80-95% of game development teams consist of males, therefore they make what they know best - the male mindset.
> Females: Because corporations don't want women in their teams, society normals discourage women from taking interest in programming and game design. Males need to stop being sexist jerks.
> Me: Women are often treated harshly when they enter male-dominated areas (such as an eSports event) because it's human tendency for the strong to prey on the weak, for the majority to pick on the minority.
> Females: So what? Males need to stop being sexist jerks and be more welcoming and accepting to females, females shouldn't have to "prove" how good they are at gaming to enter gaming circles.
> Me: Women need to drive themselves into game development, women need to drive themselves to attend gaming conventions/events/tournaments (which consist of pretty much nothing but males aged 15-35) and prove to the industry that they exist, that they make up a big chunk of the consumer base.
> Females: Women don't attend gaming conventions/events/tournaments because males are always sexist jerks towards them. And we don't need to prove anything. Males just need to stop being such dicks, and then everything will be alright.
> Me: But that's not a SOLUTION, it will never happen! Guys in Call of Duty won't stop being dicks to the rare girl player who shows up on her own, it's all about harsh competition and trash-talking! They KNOW you'll get offended when they make sexist jokes towards you, that's why they're doing it, to demoralize you.
> Females: Yeah, and they need to stop that. They need to stop acting so immature.
> Me: So what's your solution?
> Females: You guys need to stop being dicks.
> Me: ...........

And the argument just keeps going back and forth endlessly until the females just say "Tippy, you're just a sexist jerk." And I try to say "but I'm on your side, I WANT to see more women drive themselves forward into game development and gaming circles! I'm just saying that instead of asking males to roll out the red carpet for you, it's YOU who needs to do the work!"

But it's too late, I have now been dismissed as a "dick who feels sexism is right".

Whoa I took this way off topic.

Anyway, I personally liked Sucker Punch. No, not for it's mind-blowing depth (as claimed by Bob) but...well, because it's about girls smashing monsters. I felt the story/plot was shallow, but that was my first time watching it. Maybe it's something you need to watch a few more times to "get" it :P

Renegade-pizza:
I have to agree with Bob. if this film was supposed to deliver a message of some sort, then why did "nobody" get it? It was just poor delivery.

If the movie was actually well made and enjoyable to watch, then people might have gotten it as the satire it was supposed to be and not just another clone shitty action movies with big breasts and terrible story telling.

Captha: Better Call Saul. SO MUCH FUCKING WIN!!!!

Yeah, that is the movie they wanted to make, but the fact they sacrificed basic narrative coherence to do so means that isn't the message the movie ended up with.

It should not be that hard to make a movie criticizing false empowerment if you have a character designed to do that - Make Sweet Pea's outfits pragmatic and show the benefit of it. It's a metaphorical mindscape - make Sweet Pea the tank of the group because she's wearing armour, while the others actually end up beaten and bruised for running around in schoolgirl outfits. Tell us her name, play up the differences between her less-flashy, more human style. her dialogue indicates her dance is "personal" so use the dream layer that is a direct metaphor for dancing to characterize her and make her human. Zack Snyder wrote a deconstruction and paid only lip service to the actual deconstructing in favour of more titilation and nonsense.

In addition to that, cut back to the real world from time to time in between action scenes for two reasons. One: Show us the dancing/thievery that the action scene is a metaphor for, and two: show us the actual stakes involved. If the fantasy corresponds to differnt things happening in the real world, show us them happening and baby Doll reacting to them. If the guy looks to be snapping out of it, show us her noticing and improvising a new move, then the corresponding hero moment in the dream sequence. It may sound like it's destroying the point of the metaphor but the fact the entire fight scene takes place in a dream world means that it inherently lacks tension. The scene needs tension to be dramatically effective and that comes from what they're actually doing - stealing something important.

Also, keep the character's consistent - The Bus driver is apparently a figment of Baby Doll's imagination, which means at some level she put "his" plan together. Meaning she's smarter than she gives herself credit for because of severe guilt and depression for killing her sister. Make that a character arc. Have Sweet pea consistently tell her she can be more than what she is. Reinforce the idea that she's a negative role model by having the positive one point it out and try to help. Have her actually say "I didn't think this up, the old man did" pointing out the supposedly empowered character is still just doing what a man says and doesn't understand her own potential.

Lastly, have Baby Doll, who spend the entire movie trying to become first a prostitute, then a vegetable* escape. The protagonist wins when their values are accepted and validated. Like it or not, that's Baby Doll in the movie - she succeeds in both her goals, even at great cost. But if the protagonist is really Sweet Pea as the movie says, then her values - actual empowerment should win the day by allowing Baby Doll to defeat the bad guy without just making herself too vapid to be raped. What that means is that even though the title of main character nominally switched over, the movie still endorses Baby Doll - the bad role model - as it's protagonist because her actions, even though they were wrong, are what saved the day in the end. Regardless of authorial intent, the movie contradicts its own premise by portraying all the titillation and shallowness as good and necessary for actual strong woman to succeed.

and THAT is why it's a mysogynistic movie. It's plot actively negates its own premise and treats faux-empowerment as more important than actual empowerment, which it considers ineffectual and whiny. I mean, it's misanthropic in general, but the overall point of the movie was to make a statement about female empowerment, which it screwed up and said the opposite thing.

*She hears her dad and the orderly discussing the lobotomy and how much trouble they could be in if they were discovered very early on. The movie could've ended in five minutes if she'd given the matron the heads up at any point in the film. Also her go to escapist fantasy is a brothel. I don't understand why, but she seems to have wanted everything that happened to her.

Revolutionaryloser:

Darth_Payn:

bz316:
I'm not sure what's worst: having a movie pretty much call me an asshole, or (assuming Bob is correct in his assessment of the film's intentions) the fact that I totally deserved it...

Hey now, don't think like that. Zack Snyder's probably the true asshole for calling his audience the assholes for DARING to like the stuff he put into his movie.
I think the other things to hate about Sucker Punch is that, as poorly characterized as they were, we wanted the girls to escape, and only the "bitchy" one did. That last minute protagonist switch at the end was just dick-slap.

It's telling that the least trampy of the girls is the one you consider a bitch.

Well, she kind of sounded like one oin the clip Bob put in today's video, like yelling at Baby Doll for her "dancing" and calling the escape plan stupid, thus Bob calling Sweet Pea "Captain Bringdown". Showing some more of her interacting with her sister Rocket would have countered that.

And these girls' names STILL make no sense!

It was the lobotomy that did me in on this film.

I could put up with the crap, odd story and everything else - but seriously lobotomy...you cannot take that shit back.

Le Yike!

umm, am i the only one who watched this movie for the hot looking chicks and bad ass action sequences?

The end of this movie blew me away. It was, as the title probably intended from the start, a complete sucker punch that I did NOT see coming. It shook me to the core. I'm not sure if I liked it, but the reveal that the "real heroine" of the movie was Sweet Pea all along forced me to completely reevaluate everything I'd known and understood from practically the beginning of the movie.

King of Asgaard:
'Never meant to change my opinion'? Then you might want to change the title of your video, Bob.

No, he shouldn't. He didn't want to change your OPINION of the film, only your UNDERSTANDING of it. If you didn't like the movie, he's not saying you're wrong. But if you dismissed it as a shallow, mysognistic male-gaze leer-fest then you ARE wrong about that.

I actually liked this two part explanation. I agree on various points and I love the movie Sucker Punch, with or without the message(s). Nice job, Bob.

I can appreciate the mental gymnastics it took to come up with all that, Bob, but its all quite lost on the typical brain dead movie goer on a saturday night as you're well aware.

such a shame i couldnt bare to watch the film all the way through. maybe if i had messages to look out for it'd have held my interest, but i doubt it. i fely myself getting dumber as i watched

Kargathia:

RTR:
I'll take a movie that tries hard but stumbles along the way than a movie that doesn't try at all.

Oh certainly, but the minor thing of there being actually -good- movies does still relegate this to the bad movies department - especially as this didn't so much as "miss the landing", but faceplanted into the concrete at 300 miles an hour.

Part of the reason why I'm a supporter of this movie is that it really is that odd to see a movie tackling such tricky subject matter and it may take a long time before a mainstream(ish) movie takes it on again. It may take even longer for a movie that truly nails it.

Basically i just bioled down the plot to if some japanese anime writer clinical depression made inception.

captcha:"that's what she said" seriously captcha? seriously?

"Abby Cornish is six foot eight -"

GAH!

[under the video] "Sorry, 5 foot eight."

Ah.

OT: As I said before, I liked the movie. Not for the fetishism, but because I thought the fighting bits were corny in the most awesome way.

I guess this means I'm dumb on multiple levels.

MovieBob:
You Are Wrong About Sucker Punch, Part Two

Spoilers abound in this week's finale to Bob's retrospective on Sucker Punch.

Watch Video

tried to watch it and had some trouble. I feel like Ill enjoy it alot more now sense sex positve and a possible fourth wave are probably my idyllic kinds of feminism to subscribe too.

and thanks bob after watching this which I really enjoyed Ill enjoy suckerpunch so much more.
I hope two works out.

Jobbie:
umm, am i the only one who watched this movie for the hot looking chicks and bad ass action sequences?

Under sex positive ideology thats cool as long you respect the ladies on the screen.:D

TAKE HOME LESSON FROM SUCKER PUNCH: Any female-centric movie that doesn't have any children in it will be immature, over-wrought, overcomplicated, unsympathetic, and ultimately useless for teaching, correcting, or understanding. No one of any consequence or influence will ever make an argument and confidently say "Go see Sucker Punch to see what I'm talking about!"

It's just an overlong and financially wasteful attempt by Zack Snyder to feed his rich wife's dreams of social relevance, status posturing through deliberately being difficult, and personal fulfillment. Hell, Twilight at least speaks to a proper existing universal girl fantasy. (Sex and the City speaks to that fantasy corrupted by age, but obviously middle aged woman who're rapidly hitting the beauty wall love any attempt to flatter their delusions of hotness.)

Okay, I gave my impression on the bulk of the movie last week so I am just going to speak specifically to the Sweet Pea asepct of it. Mainly the possibility of the bus scene being the only "true" reality:

It doesn't work. It doesn't work because the movie fails to ever establish a quality link to the perceived real world (asylum) throughout the film. One of the films flaws is that things that happen in Brothel world don't translate well into asylum world and it rarely gives us the asylum equivalent to help us translate. For example, the main antagonist is presented as far too powerful given that his real world position is just an orderly. Corrupt or not, the things he does in brothel land are hard to conceive as having asylum equivalents.

Thus any connection we might have to a real world is pretty much lost at the outset. So trying to shock us with the idea that asylum might not be the real world has no weight because no one cares about that real world. Our entire movie experience has been about fake worlds anyway, what's one more.

Compare this to movies like Total Recall or Inception. Both of those establish what we are supposed to believe is the real world. All the motivation of the characters throughout the entire film are based on these real world stimuli. So as we start to question whether this real world actually is "real" it has an impact because we care.

Also, the idea of a grander feminist symbolism through the Sweet Pea reveal doesn't work because she isn't interesting. She was, generally, good intentioned perhaps, but there was still nothing admire about her character. Its been said before many times, but its hard to have a feminist message when none of the females are characters worth looking up to. If anything, Sweet Pea is the most traditional female role of the bunch, so puttin her up as the example, I would think, would be an insult to most feminists.

So after two weeks of this, what my conclusion woud be is that it doesn't really matter if you "get it" or not. The movie is poorly done. For this reason and this reason alone, many people prolly don't care to explore the bigger implications of the film. And even those who do are left scratching their head at how poorly done and convoluted his broader messages turned out be.

Deep or shallow, a bad movie is still a bad movie.

Scrustle:
I've really loved this two-parter. Best Big Picture episodes in a long time.

Agreed. Even if I barely agree with anything that Bob said, I'm pleased he's willing to go all out on an expansive, deep digging, and complex defence of the movie.

As to the film itself, whilst I understand that Snyder had wanted to impart some hairbrained satire of female exploitation in pop culture, I think he goes beyond simply failing to get the message across; he ends up becoming an agent for the thing he was criticising. It doesn't matter what his message was, only the message we come away with. And the message most people came away with was that Synder is far too preoccupied with gratuitous action and panty shots.

As for the thing about criticising sex positive feminism...no. I think Bob gives the movie too much credit. The argument doesn't even stand up when you think about it - if the implication is that the entire movie is just the fantasy of Sweetpea in the "real world" (which was my understanding of the movie), and Sweetpea is the one who recognises that dolling up isn't going to work, then why does she keep imagining scenarios in which the dolling up does work? The dolling up was what permitted Sweetpea to escape in the end - Babydoll helps her escape by using her sexiness to distract the last of the guards. If you're trying to say that sex won't empower women, don't use sex as the one and only solution to the last obstacle.

Also, if Bob's conclusion is true, that makes the movie even more mysogynistic. After all, its basically trying to detract from the sex positive feminist movement, saying to them "Women can never be empowered by sexiness, so sorry if you think you are empowered, all you sex workers, because you can't be."

Just a quick question: How many times did you need to watch this film (or parts of it) to nail down each of the individual metaphors? I found this film significantly more confusing than Inception, which also deals with layered time-distorted subconscious fantasies.
I recall when I saw this in the theatre, I was completely befuddled by the shift back to the asylum and immediately realized that I had somehow FORGOTTEN it's existence. My mind had combined the asylum and brothel "fantasies" into being one and I had constructed the explanation that the asylum was a front for an illegal prostitution ring, which was completely and utterly wrong. It's not that I wasn't paying attention, I just didn't realized that there had ever BEEN a transition. Overall I still really liked it but not for the reason I had initially come for if you'll forgive the horrendous pun.

SonOfVoorhees:
Yeah, but i still think your looking waaayyyyyy to much into it. Some of your comments are valid, i agree, but the rest. Meh. For me, if its the girls fantasy (nazi thing, dragon etc) why are they still wearing sexualised clothing? Its their choice to do that, its their fantasy, not mens fantasy. The director sucked at it, if you are correct, because you cant direct a movie full of overly sexualised characters, market it and sell it that way and then make it against those things.

Watch the video again. Bob makes the point that this is a criticism of "3rd Wave Feminism", wherein women exploiting their sexuality for their own gain is viewed as okay. The girls wearing fetish clothing in the fantasy scenes represents that it's their own choice to use their sexuality to achieve their own ends.

Does it work? Does it make sense? Perhaps not, but Bob is just saying that was the director/writer's intention.

Also, as far as "reading too much into things", you should have been in my high school enriched/AP english classes. ALL of literary criticism could be described as "reading too much into things" to varying degrees, but that doesn't mean we can't do it, and it certainly doesn't mean it's not important to do it.

ElPatron:

Eternal_Lament:
It's a film where Zack Snyder probably thought of when he was 13, and tried to then "update" by means of "feminist standards" to make it seem empowering, only to come out muddled.

I disagree. Nothing about the movie seems "updated".

I might have missed the point of Movie Bob's videos about the subject. I thought that the whole point was "This is okay because it empowers women, right? WRONG!"

Now this is my personal interpretation of the movie: every time the girls try to "empower" themselves with sexuality things go wrong.

I wasn't referring to the "Women are empowered, therefore it's feminist!" line of thinking in regards to it being "updated". Rather, that Zack Snyder created this story when he was 13, and when he had the chance to make it he tried to "update" it with standard conventions in regards to what he perceives as feminism, but because the overall concept doesn't work with the update that it becomes a mess. It's the conflict between the 13 year old Zack and the adult Zack where I was referring to the failure in the "update". Again, my biggest criticism has more to do with the film just being incompetent rather than "sexist" or "misogynist". It's a film that has too many flaws for it to be considered deep or complex, or rather even if it was deep or complex those elements don't form a defense for the rest of the movie that is complete garbage.

Ok Bob you convinced me to give the movie another shot. If for no other reason then to see if I can pick out the same ideas that you did.

impocalyptic:
Sarkeesian denounced this as misogyny dressed up as female empowerment. I thought she just didn't get it then and, thanks to Bob, I now have a good reason for believing so. Someone send these vids to her!

Oh come on! Why did you have to mention She-who-must-not-be-named?

SonOfVoorhees:
why are they still wearing sexualised clothing?

Because it's the projection of sexual abuse in the asylum as is the brothel.

Aaron Sylvester:

mfeff:
snip

It's incredible, I have been saying the same thing since the very beginning - but sadly I wasn't able to properly word my stuff and was constantly bashed by females :(
The discussions went something like this:

Allow me to chime in on some of your bullet points here if ya don't mind. ;)

> Me: Something like 80-95% of game development teams consist of males, therefore they make what they know best - the male mindset.
> Females: Because corporations don't want women in their teams, society normals discourage women from taking interest in programming and game design. Males need to stop being sexist jerks.

That is true, though to be fair on any large production staff there are maybe... 10 percent at best of those people on the project with any real "creative" input as to the narrative, art assets, themes... what have you... the rest is grunt work.

So in a sense what your saying is true, it is likely that on any given day that the themes and direction will be of the type targeted at some particular male demographic, but it is demonstrably an economic decision more than it is a ludic/playful/play-style one.

The issue with the female rebuttal is that it has failed to address the economic burden or "risk assessment" of employing all these people at some great cost to produce a product that may not have much of a market.

That is one of the notions of the hypoagency, that of risk mitigation by shifting the economic problem onto someone else.

Who takes the economic risk?

> Me: Women are often treated harshly when they enter male-dominated areas (such as an eSports event) because it's human tendency for the strong to prey on the weak, for the majority to pick on the minority.
> Females: So what? Males need to stop being sexist jerks and be more welcoming and accepting to females, females shouldn't have to "prove" how good they are at gaming to enter gaming circles.

There are a couple solid videos on the Youtube on this topic... gaming from the arcade level was always competitive, it's simply grown from there. Interestingly a parallel is that of organized martial arts. I have sparred with plenty of women but we do not compete in a desegregated format.

To go a step further women are statistically more likely to use physical violence before a male in a dispute. However, women are less likely to want to engage a male in a contest in which violence is a part of the cultural operating system from the very beginning.

Hypoagency here is dictating that the environment should change in a way that the risk of violence is mitigated away from the person, not that the violence is in any way, or the competition is in any way, inherently wrong. It's simply wrong when it is openly accepted to be against the agent.

This introduces a double standard which is contrary to the spirit of the competition.

My question is then, do you want to compete or don't you? Competition implies a commitment to the subject matter.

Maybe at the pro level it needs to be segregated? But let's be real... most of the planet sucks at gaming in general.

It's (to me) a non-issue.

My philosophy on this is "learn on your own time". Mind you the only woman I play games with is the wife... so she gets an "exception".

> Me: Women need to drive themselves into game development, women need to drive themselves to attend gaming conventions/events/tournaments (which consist of pretty much nothing but males aged 15-35) and prove to the industry that they exist, that they make up a big chunk of the consumer base.
> Females: Women don't attend gaming conventions/events/tournaments because males are always sexist jerks towards them. And we don't need to prove anything. Males just need to stop being such dicks, and then everything will be alright.

Well maybe so maybe no. I've known plenty of extremely capable women in the sciences that "could of" become grade A software engineers and designers... but most of the most academically studied females that I have known simply know better than to get involved in the game industry. Most are scholastically above it, or interested in other fields such as bio-medical research or straight engineering.

The games industry as far as a career goes has traditionally been a dumping ground for people who didn't fit in more traditional industries. It's also a magnet for the artistically minded set, conversely there are not that many artist who are also good technical designers.

It's almost a "love it" thing, where you love it, cause every other aspect of the industry is garbage compared to more matured industrial productions.

My conclusion, most women that would be great at it, are above it. Leaving a lot of liberal arts people behind to sort of piddle through it.

It's a "piddle party", you can quote me on that! ;)

> Me: But that's not a SOLUTION, it will never happen! Guys in Call of Duty won't stop being dicks to the rare girl player who shows up on her own, it's all about harsh competition and trash-talking! They KNOW you'll get offended when they make sexist jokes towards you, that's why they're doing it, to demoralize you.
> Females: Yeah, and they need to stop that. They need to stop acting so immature.
> Me: So what's your solution?
> Females: You guys need to stop being dicks.
> Me: ...........

Video games by tradition have been and likely will continue to be targeted and designed with an immature audience in mind. That includes both men and women demographics. Keep in mind hypoagency is not gender exclusive, and is synonymous with both self centered, lazy, emotionally immature folk.

That is that video games are Toys, for children. I mean, that is how it is in the (strong finger quote) "real world".

Personally the solution is no solution, one simply grows up and grows out of gaming in general, or sort of migrates to a particular genre or style of title. Mind you when I think of a top tier player base, I am specifically referring to less than 1 percent of the population that plays games. Everything else is 50 shades of grey of casual.

Even if a person is top drawer at one game, they are very likely Mario party casual at everything else... just how it goes.

And the argument just keeps going back and forth endlessly until the females just say "Tippy, you're just a sexist jerk." And I try to say "but I'm on your side, I WANT to see more women drive themselves forward into game development and gaming circles! I'm just saying that instead of asking males to roll out the red carpet for you, it's YOU who needs to do the work!"

But it's too late, I have now been dismissed as a "dick who feels sexism is right".

Whoa I took this way off topic.

It's a relevant topic, at least by escapist forum standards. ;)

I just wouldn't take it very seriously... maybe if someone is really drilling a particular game and is trying to be top shelf... then sure... but most this talk is just talk. The controller don't give a shit if you have an innie or an outie...

If ya suck, I care cause your wasting my time. I don't argue about it, I just kick-ban. I tend not to play or allow women to join my guilds... so I segregate. That's my prerogative. Being an adult is a two way street.

Wanna be alpha; it's simple.

Make a game, make a mod, or learn to beat ass.

Everything else is everything else... piddle party. Makin or doin... bitchin ain't a high value commodity... not in my arcade anyways...

Anyway, I personally liked Sucker Punch. No, not for it's mind-blowing depth (as claimed by Bob) but...well, because it's about girls smashing monsters. I felt the story/plot was shallow, but that was my first time watching it. Maybe it's something you need to watch a few more times to "get" it :P

I watched it once... with the wife... I thought it was boring...

Now in retrospect I find that it is A LOT like the audio book Dear Esther which is an experiment at creating a plot-less narrative... some folks call it art... I call it an experiment but whatever...

That is that Sucker Punch's narrative never commits to it's own narrative and as such is "by design" encouraging the audience to draw it's own conclusions.

It's not my cup of tea, neither was Dear Esther, I don't consider it art... just narrative experimentation and post modern existential wank/angst.

We see this in productions that rely heavily on metaphor, cause metaphor means... you guessed it, no commitment.

As far as Sucker Punch goes... I said it was possibly a female with daddy issues that was sleeping around with different guys, and each guy she took on a different "persona", or chameleon aspect to sort of "suit him" which in turn suits herself but is ultimately a reflexive prison emotionally.

The other girls are friends or aspects of her psyche that are "like" friends in her mind, each one just another fragmented self, or some kind of hero's journey analog.

She meets or imagines or subverts the high roller, who basically calls bullshit on her manipulative sex nonsense (he is an ideal - explicitly), the film never commits whether he is actually real or her making it up. Simply the notion or idea of the high roller in turn shatters her own reflexive manipulation and grows her up... ie. it's the lobotomy and purging of all her "chameleon faces".

I think we never see the actual narrator, sweat pea is just another chameleon face sort of "last man standing". The rape is all metaphor for sex she has engaged in but didn't "really" want to engage in with the various men she was manipulating. Necessary evil, which is sold to the audience as a rape, film never commits so we don't have to as an audience. It's all part n' parcel of the unreliable narrator trope.

I find it just as likely that the old man is the narrator embellishing some romp he had with some girl... heck it could be a grand-dad talking about how he met your grandma.

Like I said, the film never commits, I think the film is designed that way intentionally, just like Dear Esther... and maybe Ridley Scott's Prometheus... which is another... "meh" film to me.

Nice convo guy!

I never saw the movie, but I was kinda interested in seeing it because of Bob's original recommendation. I'm glad I didn't see it, because I doubt I would have gotten it either. Too deep for me I guess.

I also like what DVS BSTrD touched on in the first post. I think metaphors are great and all, but they need to go somewhere to make sense. Look at how South Park drives its point every time they weigh in on something political. They tell a metaphor story to the problem and let the audience connect the lines to the real issue. They are usually more overt about it, but it still shows how you can get a clearer message through a story instead of just imagery.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here