My views on the controversy over the new Hitman trailer.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Truth-be-told, I'm very impressed at these (although pre-rendered) graphics. I didn't know that it was CGI until mid-way through the video.

On topic, the trailer is...interesting. The latex was a little much, but I see no reason for controversy. I don't see why a gang of women couldn't be out for him for something, considering the many other groups he's killed before. The Kill Bill-like theme is really cool and is rarely done in trailers, which I enjoy.

Woodsey:

Actually, I think the trailer is born from someone looking at Blood Money, completely misunderstanding why everyone in the game is either roided-up or pumped full of botox, and then trying to copy that.

It's in the original games so that everyone is purposefully vulgar - they're not cool or sexy, they're ugly and disgusting. There are multiple reasons why, a big one probably being to make it far easier to make 47 a playable anti-hero, and to heighten your distaste for the people you're killing.

I agree with this 100%. Blood Money was very knowingly exaggerated in terms of its sexual content, because it made the targets all the more detached from the predominantly asexual 47. It acted like something of a visual representation of his distaste for other people, and it was a quite clever little device.

Absolution seems to have the subtlety of getting your face smashed in by a Quentin Tarantino DVD box set.

LiquidGrape:

Woodsey:

Actually, I think the trailer is born from someone looking at Blood Money, completely misunderstanding why everyone in the game is either roided-up or pumped full of botox, and then trying to copy that.

It's in the original games so that everyone is purposefully vulgar - they're not cool or sexy, they're ugly and disgusting. There are multiple reasons why, a big one probably being to make it far easier to make 47 a playable anti-hero, and to heighten your distaste for the people you're killing.

I agree with this 100%. Blood Money was very knowingly exaggerated in terms of its sexual content, because it made the targets all the more detached from the predominantly asexual 47. It acted like something of a visual representation of his distaste for other people, and it was a quite clever little device.

Absolution seems to have the subtlety of getting your face smashed in by a Quentin Tarantino DVD box set.

Unfortunately, it also seems that the entire game has been designed by someone looking at Blood Money and misunderstanding absolutely everything.

Theres controversy around it?

Weird. The only gripes I have with it is that it's a rather shitty trailer. Killing women? Whatever. Killed plenty of men in video games already, why not women?

Oh, and I guess they have skimpy outfits. Time to get outraged I guess...

DVS BSTrD:
I thought it was more to do with the fact that 47 fought more like Jason Statham than a professional assassin.

Exactly.It just looked stupid as far as advertisements goes.....unless your target demographic is teenage boys.

As a feminist, I have absolutely no problem with women being killed in video games (so long as it's not some obnoxious anti-women thing). I'm much more offended by the idea that women are delicate flowers who would never end up in a fight, and I am VERY uncomfortable with the fact that it's generally perceived as ok for a woman to slap a man, but the reverse is some sort of abomination. So bring it on, give us more female enemies. In fact, I hadn't really thought about it before but in games like Mass Effect there seems to be a pretty even split in the enemy NPCs' genders, which is as it should be in that setting. So yeah, more of that please.

What I do have an issue with (and really it's more of a "*sigh* seriously?" issue than actual anger) is the ridiculous sexualisation. Latex nun costumes? Is that really necessary? Fair enough if this was Saints Row or something, but... really? This whole trailer just seems massively desperate. It's pretty obvious that they were hoping to provoke some controversy, though possibly not for the whole "violence against women" thing.

I'm not offended by the trailer, but I think it's tacky as fuck and it does put me off the game. Not that I was really interested in it in the first place.

Nomanslander:
snip

Meh, just hitman marketing team being a marketing team. They did a similar thing with blood money (the posters of models who had been assassinated). There was a bit of a thing about that too.

Its just attention grabbing, and it worked.

I've realised that i shouldnt judge the game by how it is marketed. Both departments (Developing, marketing) are completely serparate from eachother.

I don't see nay controversy in this trailer at all. Sexy Nun Assassin squad isn't exactly "tasteful", but it is defiantly not sexist or explicit. I think what the advertisement is trying to get across is with games (when assassins or assassinations are involved) being about "Creeds", "Imagery", "Beliefs", "Groups" and "Reasons". Where you have this one man, made for one purpose, who has no reasons, motives (besides money) or beliefs. He is just doing it for the money, and he will do it in a suit, or actually camouflage himself into the crowd, as an assassin would do, thus having the "The Original Assassin" at the end. I quite like it and it would get me pumped for the new Hitman game, if I hadn't seen the game-play.

distortedreality:
I really liked the trailer, was very Kill Bill-ish.

People will whinge about anything.

Summed me up perfectly.

That was a very good trailer, I liked every second of it. They even managed to pull of 47 killing 8 highly trained assassins without making it look like he's some sort of cliche inhuman/untouchable/invulnerable/omniscient badass.

I'm impressed.

Nomanslander:
Now this my MY problem with this issue. Why is it that it's okay to murder wave after wave of male enemies, but when they turn female it all of a sudden becomes wrong? So killing men in movies and games = good, killing women = bad. No matter if they're portrayed as murderers out to get you themselves, it's still some how wrong. This is what I think is at the heart of what's wrong with this trailer. Not as much the trailer itself, but the reactions that it's getting.

I didn't find the "murderin some chicks" part of the trailer to be silly. I didn't even mind most of the violence. I did find the gratuitous sexy nun outfits (and by the way, nuns usually don't wear a habit anymore. The only people that do that are people in a sexy-nun costume) and the gratuitous A-Team lineup to be silly.

Nomanslander:
As a Veteran I find this offensive because at one point in my life I was treated as an expendable tool.

Thank you for your service to your country. *Nod*

Please, there isn't a single game that couldn't be improved with a latex nun squad.

Wait, so the agency sends assassin nuns to kill him? Makes logic. The controversy with the skimpy outfits doesn't make sense to me, personalty. Games are a exaggeration of reality. This game is the perfect example. It's seems to be that the outfits you put the assassins in is more controversial then there jobs or the way they act. Yeah there killed in a brutal manner, but he does this to everyone.

I dont see anything really wrong here. The women are sexualised but they are shown as competent and treated as equals, therefore I cant really see any sexism/objectification.

I know the trailer just came out, but this is honestly the first I have heard of any controversy with the trailer.

Buretsu:

Nomanslander:

I think it's the same issue that a game called Final Fight once dealt with back in the late 80s early 90s. In a beat 'em up game where the objective was to take on wave after wave of muscle bond urban criminals. The game suffered fear of controversy when within the line up of bad guys, one of the characters just so happened to be female. When the game was brought over from Japan, the fear was male audiences would feel disheartened by beating up a female characters, no matter if they were made out as enemies there to kill you, and the game would suffer from it. So what they did was turn this female character into a transvestite, making it okay now to beat up a supposed homosexual as long as that character supposedly at one time in its life had male genitalia.

That's a common misconception, one that I admittedly used to share. Poison was always a male. In the instruction booklet for the game, he was described as a "Newhalf", a pre-op or non-op male-to-female transsexual.

You mean she. Male-to-female transsexuals are referred to with feminine gender pronouns, as genitalia does not determine sex.

On-topic, I can't even muster up enough energy to care over the TRULY OUTRAGEOUS objectification of women in this trailer because...I dunno, maybe it's because I'm a man and I'm used to this. No, seriously, no matter what feminists do, this stuff will continue, that's just how it works. We've gone too far down the rabbit hole now.

Ideally, there'd be an equal amount of video game trailers featuring muscular men in assless Gimp suits fighting off an Ellen Ripley-type character, but "gender equality" is nothing more than an idealist's dream in a shitty world where women were born with tits and sexy legs and wear more revealing clothing whereas men just have a dick and wear less revealing clothing.

Checked the link, saw the trailer, found it tasteless. Predominantly the fetishization. It could easily have made a more sensible and agreeable trailer with pretty much the same choreography; but they know exactly what they're doing here.

Stripes:
I dont see anything really wrong here. The women are sexualised but they are shown as competent and treated as equals, therefore I cant really see any sexism/objectification.

That depends heavily on what you choose to perceive.

(and typically on the Escapist; not least of all places; a good 70% of the seemingly mature, well-adjusted males of equal rights/feminist sensibilities here will miss the forest for the trees with a zealous stubborness when their crumpet is subject to scrutiny)

For example; it could be interpreted as a metaphor for male sexual frustration, (particularly in the male gaming demographic) shown in the violent contempt for these 'attractive' and 'sexually powerful' women. The women depicted serving as fodder for this power fantasy.

In any case; I expect this thread has one more page before it becomes another gender-political flame war....

Khanht Cope:
Checked the link, saw the trailer, found it tasteless. Predominantly the fetishization. It could easily have made a more sensible and agreeable trailer with pretty much the same choreography; but they know exactly what they're doing here.

Stripes:
I dont see anything really wrong here. The women are sexualised but they are shown as competent and treated as equals, therefore I cant really see any sexism/objectification.

That depends heavily on what you choose to perceive.

(and typically on the Escapist; not least of all places; a good 70% of the supposedly well-adjusted, feminist/equal rights-leaning males here will miss the forest for the trees with a zealous stubborness when their crumpet is subject to scrutiny)

For example; it could be interpreted as a metaphor for male sexual frustration, (particularly in the male gaming demographic) shown in the violent contempt for these 'attractive' and 'sexually powerful' women. The women depicted serving as fodder for this power fantasy.

In any case; I expect this thread has one more page before it becomes another gender-political flame war....

I dont have a problem with sexualisation, so long as it isnt 'out of place' if that makes sense, so long as it isnt objectification. I think the trailer isnt that deep, its tits and guns much like the first one but whilst there is a lot of sexualisation as part of the marketing, which im not particularily fond of, the second trailer isnt sexist or misoginistic. Theres fetisisation, each to his own on that one, but the women are at least competent and he isnt afraid to hurt them, I see that as treating them as equals rather than being inherently weaker or something.

As I just said, it depends on what you choose to perceive.

In your case, you're choosing to perceive "oh, it's just 'sex-sells' marketing" and that the women are displayed as competent or 'equals'. Whereas someone on the other side may perceive a trailer where 7 sexualized women, all armed to the teeth are killed by 1 man... brutally; and that "dang, ya know? maybe a male power fantasy for sexual frustration is a good marketing strategy for a game audience."

And lets say hypothetically that the more cynical interpretation is closer to the truth; (we're talking about marketing, here) they'd be consciously aware that while they'll always have armies of supposedly indifferent folk like yourself standing up as apologists whenever the question is asked; they can just keep on doing this stuff.

ffs...chicks in latex BDSM-esque costumes are only hot on the woman I am with. Aside from that, they all look incredibly retared. Still....the trailer was pretty cool.

What controversy? It's just a crappy trailer.

Watched 1:39 seconds of it and got bored. People expecting to go into a gunfight wearing the least appropriate clothing for the job. The 'V' formation stopped being used as an aerial combat formation mid-battle of Britain (The Luftwaffe called it the 'row of idiots' which, fittingly, is what these ladies look like) but I've no idea why you'd stand like that. Using an obsolete anti-tank weapon on a building, which somehow caused a fuel-like explosion, then a stupid fight scene.

Didn't realise there was a controversy. Good to know.

felbot:
no i dont think that was peoples problem with the game, the problem is that they added some rather shameless sex appeal to a series that had up until that point been rather serious in tone.

I'm sorry, did you not play the Meat House level in contracts or the Heaven/Hell Party in Blood Money?

Matthew94:

felbot:
no i dont think that was peoples problem with the game, the problem is that they added some rather shameless sex appeal to a series that had up until that point been rather serious in tone.

I'm sorry, did you not play the Meat House level in contracts or the Heaven/Hell Party in Blood Money?

no i havent, i havent played any hitman game aside from a demo of blood money.

i just wanted to tell the op why i thought people were getting mad about the game, sorry if i offended anyone.

felbot:

Matthew94:

felbot:
no i dont think that was peoples problem with the game, the problem is that they added some rather shameless sex appeal to a series that had up until that point been rather serious in tone.

I'm sorry, did you not play the Meat House level in contracts or the Heaven/Hell Party in Blood Money?

no i havent, i havent played any hitman game aside from a demo of blood money.

i just wanted to tell the op why i thought people were getting mad about the game, sorry if i offended anyone.

The first level I mentioned takes place in an abattoir. The men are in suits and most of the women are in gimp suits with ball gags and many of the NPCs are dancing in a huge rave and some are even fucking against a dumpster next to carcasses.

Hitman always had an odd side...

Matthew94:
I'm sorry, did you not play the Meat House level in contracts or the Heaven/Hell Party in Blood Money?

See, what bothers me is that those things are believable. This isn't.

Those things are just an idealized version of fetish clubs, which actually do happen and at best are a little bit like that. The meat house in particular is spot on, in that you can almost see it happening in real life (hopefully without the psycho in the attic) and being really fucking cool.

It's not really sex appeal so much as it's meant to give the impression that you're in the sleazy, semi-legal underbelly of society.

And yeah, I know there was a giant shark in the hell club and that was kind of dumb, but meh.. it's one thing.

The video, I have to say, is a bridge too far for me. Not because it's overly sexy, I think the mixture of hot women, debased catholic imagery and violence is spot on for Hitman. But because there's no logic to it. You physically can't move like that in PVC and heels, and where the hell was she hiding the RPG? Also, why are these people dressed in nun-fetish outfits in a parking lot?

See, there are sexy female assassins in Blood Money, but there's a clear logic to their actions. They're dressed up in order to blend in at parties, and they kill you by luring you somewhere private and then ambushing you while you're off-guard. Sure, it's sexually charged and violent and generally ends with 47 killing them and not feeling bad about it or being brutally stabbed to death by a giggling psycho in an angel costume, but it also has a clear sense of context.

I'm already anxious about this game for other reasons, but this video just feels like missing the point a bit.

Also, as someone mentioned, a big part of the fun of all this is that canonically 47 (at least in the games) is presented as completely asexual. I thought that surrounding you with T&A punishing you for breaking established character with an instant death animation was a nice (and I suspect deliberate) touch. I don't get a sense that 47 really appreciates any difference between men and women. They're both squishy and they both die easily.

The only controversy in this trailer is "where the fuck was she keeping that RPG?!"

It's a nifty trailer, but it really doesn't fit my perception of Hitman games. A perception based on having played and beaten all the games (Save the first, I played the demo on Mac YEARS ago).

While it's definitely had it's over the top moments, it's fair share of grand guignol and John Woo-esque operatic gunfights, I've always found Hitman..I dunno, somewhat grounded in reality? This whole nun hit-squad thing seems ripped outta a bad modern grindhouse wannabe flick. Talk about Quentin Tarantino school of film-making. Blech.
Still, really pretty-looking. Kudos Square-Enix, as always.

Ergh, the worst thing about this whole controversy is the reaction to it, the same knee jerk 'oh yeahhhhh well if it wuz menz gettun kiled u wuldn't caree' bullshit response I see every single time the issue of the portrayal of fetishized sexual violence against women in the media is brought up.

The belief that somehow any percieved example of celebration of violence against women is really misandry because we immediatley percieve that in a hypothetical situation where the roles were reversed people wouldn't care. Essentially while one group is actually being 'victimized' (for lack of a better word) the other group has to imagine that they are being victimized so that they get to play the victim card back at the first group.

"Oh, you want games to be more approachable to women, well that's like, sexist against men you evil feminazi bitches!!"

But yes actually, it is true. If this were men being killed in stylized slow motion by guns and bullets then there wouldn't be a controversy. However do you know what else wouldn't be there if these were men?
They wouldn't strip off their costumes, they wouldn't be wearing skin tight latex and thongs and the camera wouldn't keep lovingly trying to show off their sex appeal while they are being murdered. And incidently that is the reason that there is a controversy in the first place!
"We're not misogynists, you stupid whore!"

The issue isn't that it depicts women getting killed. No one who has commented on the issue has said this is the case: http://au.ign.com/articles/2012/05/30/opinion-what-the-hell-is-with-that-hitman-trailer
The issue is not solely the depiction of women dying, I don't know if you've noticed but 'women dying' happens a lot in video games. Was there a massive uproar when Miranda Keyes died in Halo 3? Was there a massive boycott because Dead Island's trailer depicted the death of a mother and her daughter? Did the 'evil feminazis' attack gaming when Jenny died in the Darkness?

The issue is that the relentless violence depicted in this trailer was also heavily sexualized. That there was a concious decision to dress all the women up in cheese cakey fetish outfits and show off their bodies constantly while the assassin was going around stabbing, throat slitting, neck breaking, strangling and shooting them all, them dying and their blood splattering everywhere is very disturbing, at least to me.

Reading the comment page to the link I just posted, I am just amazed how people completely managed to miss the point even when it was right there in front of their faces. Once they found out the author was a woman, all her precieved credibility was gone and they resorted to rebuking arguments that she did not make!

I don't mind women dying in our media, I'm still not great with violence towards women but I can tolerate it if it's at least tastefully presented. This isn't tastefully presented. Instead it's a gruesome and unpleasant insight into what the people who made this trailer apparently think their audience want to see. Are you seriously trying to tell me that fully rendered depictions of intentionally sexualized women being physically dominated or killed can't in some way be percieved as disturbing and sexist?

This has happened before, I've seen it happen in comics. When the Joker shot Barbara Gordon in the spine in the Killing Joke the author Alan Moore also found it necessary to have him strip her naked and hang her up on a wall. When another Batgirl was tortured to death by Black Mask, the comic kept showing off her butt and breasts and recently in the Catwoman comics she is sexualized but while she commits violence (wearing a bra and shirt when cutting a guy's face) and when violence is committed against her (beaten and bloody, and we can see right down her shirt.)

There is nothing wrong with women being hurt or dying in our media. As long as it is at least in some way equal to the way violence is portrayed against men. For instance a lot of people (myself included) weren't happy with the sexualized depiction of Ashley in Mass Effect 3 but Bioware thankfully gave her some armor after a bit of fan demand. There is a scene early on in the game where Ashley gets attacked by a Cerberus robot lady and has her head repeatedly slammed against the wall of a shuttle, causing her serious head trauma and leaving her in hospital for the next few missions.
However while the scene was awful (Ashley is my favorite female character, I find it very hard to watch) I would never call Bioware 'sexist' for depicting it for several important reasons:
1. The same thing happens to Kaidan Alenko if it's him there and not Ashley.
2. The violence is depicted not as stylized Zack Snyder slickness but as viceral and brutal and real. Ash is getting hurt and in the hospital she's got hideous dark bruises and scars afterwards, the violence and aftermath of it is real and they don't feel the need to make it 'pretty' because Ashley is a woman.
3. Ashley is not being actively sexualized while being pummeled half to death!

As a result the scene made me scream:
"ASHLEY!"
And be super worried about her, it put real emotion and conflict into the scene and was really shocking and emotional and intense. However I can tell you right now if Ashley had been wearing the sexy (but by comparison modest) officer's uniform it would take the tension away a fair bit. But to go even further if Bioware felt it necessary to put her in a latex bikini with a thong and stilletos and zoomed in on her breasts and arse while she is almost dying... then I would say 'Bioware are disturbed woman hating freaks'.
Then put the game away and scrub myself.

For another example imagine that recent Ghost Recon ad with the big breasted lady in skimpy clothing that men and women everywhere know and hate unanimously. On its own I wouldn't call it sexist, dumb, pandering and insulting to the player's intelligence sure but not sexist.

But now imagine if it ended with her being strangled, stabbed and shot with her blood freely splattering around everywhere.
What would that say about the game's advertisers then? Suddenly 'they are pandering to the lowest common demoninator of intelligence with this ad' would look remarkably welcome by comparison because now the alternative is:
'This game is pandering to Paul Elam on steroids'.

And yes I don't know that much about Hitman as a series (in fact I know about as much as that the guy's name is 47). So maybe the games are filled with all this kind of stuff, hell maybe there is some plot device somewhere that makes it all make perfect sense. Or maybe the designers just felt like mixing sex appeal with violence in the name of controversy, which I feel is more likely.
But remember this advertisement is the way they chose to present this game to the world, so newcomers both male and female are going to look at this and while I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to make ads like this... they also have no right to act surprised if people get repulsed by it.

Frankly if gamers really are so sick of controversies like this springing up the best solution would be to not defend shit like this. The only reason crap like this gets to keep happening is because there is never a really serious response against it. That in lew of admitting that there are problems with the way that the game media portrays women we would rather believe that any woman who doesn't like it is being unreasonable or bitchy because we imagine an alternate scenario in our heads where we are the victim because it's easier to do that than admit we're wrong.

Somehow I don't exactly see this exact situation with the gender roles reversed ever happening, do you? I can't imagine a very expensive CGI trailer depicting men in leather gimp gear undressing from their priest uniforms and getting killed by a female protagonist while the camera shows off their junk.
I'd applaud any game designer brave enough to do something like that, comment on how absurd it looks on men and wonder why therefore its so commonplace with women that we don't even think about it anymore. But that would never happen, the gaming media would slam it as being 'gay' and even after all their crap about 'gender equality' you know damn well they would find some way to convince themselves that it was all the 'evil feminazi's faults'.

Shit like this will keep happening, more incidents like the Cross Assault incident, more Duke Nukem Forever(s), more misogynistic slurs buried in game code and with it will come the controversies.
Is this the worst offender or where the world changing events should start? No, not really. But it needs to start somewhere and frankly I want it to be soon. It's one thing to use violence to sell a game, it's one thing to use sex appeal to sell a game, it's one thing to use women to sell a game.
But I can't believe that someone actually decided that the audience would want to see a game sold with sex appeal where the 'appeal' was essentiallt violence against women. That's just a whole can of awful and every negative stereotype about the gaming media just got a lot uglier and it's made worse by people's continued stubborn determination to pretend it isn't an issue.

The one thing worse than an ad like this is the media getting a sight of the ugly side of gaming's attitudes towards it. Rather than speak out or point out that you know sexualized depictions of women getting murdered is kind of fucked up we would rather ignore it and pretend it isn't an issue and do incredible mental gymnastics to convince ourselves that the women appalled by sexualized violence against women must secretly be ignorant man haters.

Vrex360:
The one thing worse than an ad like this is the media getting a sight of the ugly side of gaming's attitudes towards it. Rather than speak out or point out that you know sexualized depictions of women getting murdered is kind of fucked up we would rather ignore it and pretend it isn't an issue and do incredible mental gymnastics to convince ourselves that the women appalled by sexualized violence against women must secretly be ignorant man haters.

One of the quotes that pops into my head when seeing this sort of thing happen is Walt Disney's "If you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will."

I'm not sure if this argument speaks to an amount of social desensitization, or rather the disposition of the people who observed the trailer the way they did. But personally, I hate the sort of violence porn that you see in media. Movies like the explicitly dark and bloody slashers, even if they're cheap CG or clearly prop plastic and fake blood, have always put my stomach on edge. I genuinely dislike the idea that there's some joy in watching bones crack in excruciating or a fountain of blood resulting from a character's blade.

However, when I watched this trailer, I got none of that. Hell, even as far as PVC nun outfits go, are surprisingly tasteful. Just for giggles, let's do a breast/cleavage check and ass-shot check on all of the nuns.

First sexualization moment is the first disrobe, at 0:42. The entire motion takes a little under one second. Follow-up of an ass shot. Likewise around a second in length. We'll call it two seconds for easy math. Crotch shot (and fishnets, which I honestly wouldn't have noticed were it not for doing this experiment) immediately following. Under a second. The subsequent footage has roughly twelve seconds of slow-down. The nose-breaking (which was highlighted in the original article), takes place in under half of a second. For those keeping score at home, that's two minutes and twenty seconds of trailer, and roughly three to three and a half seconds of that is intentionally sexually charged. And yet this is grotesque violence-porn? Fewer than four seconds with the vaguest of hints of sexualization and this is the straw the broke the camel's back?

Part of the reason gamers are having a hard time coming to grips with the argument that this is sexual violence-porn is because it doesn't really seem the part. We see far less violence than we would with a Tarantino flick, or even an Uwe Boll movie based on the same property. In terms of sexualization media, this is significantly less sexually charged than games like Bayonetta (in their entirety, much less a single teaser-trailer), X-Blades, or even the sexualization of violence in Silent Hill 2, which was quite rampant.

Instead, we're picking on this trailer because it idolizes and sexualizes violence? Do the enemies have to be PVC nuns? Not really. Is the trailer tasteless about it? Not hardly. Am I a misogynist for apparently not noticing the gross sexualization of women? Or are others for seeing sex where almost no one else did?

In short, I think I'll close with a quote directly from the linked IGN article:

She absorbs bullets, and then Agent 47 shoots the final nun square in the forehead before she can fire a round at him.

Square in the forehead, huh? If you look for the bad expecting to find it, you surely will.

Sexualized violence is never okay. I'm not horribly offended but it is definitely tacky and exploitative. We can do better.

The only controversy I can justify perpetrating after seeing this trailer is questioning where the crap the black nun hid the RPG-7.

Where the hell were you people to complain about sexualized violence back when Silent Hill 2 was released?

LiquidGrape:
The issue here is that the trailer is unbridled adolescent pandering which objectifies women before happily proceeding to portray their gratuitous murder.

Perhaps you missed the point where the Hitman canon specifically tell you that Agent 47 was built from the group up to be a killer, and a damned efficient one.

The world of Hitman is filled with BDSM references and people with fucked up fetishes. A group of weird-ass women decided to call themselves "Saints" and dress in leather. Makes at least 10x more sense than Sucker Punch.

Mind that Agent 47 has exceptional martial arts skills and strength (remember that he was engineered for killing) that are waaaay above the average man.

Mind that Agent 47 was able to kill all of them because he started eliminating them with STEALTH. Which is the point of the series. The girls started by blowing stuff up and advancing with assault rifles and SMGs/PDWs - not subtle at all!

AGENT 47 KICKED THEIR ASSES BECAUSE OF HIS INTELLECT, SUPERIOR GENETICS AND HIS MODUS OPERANDI. NOT BECAUSE THEY WERE WOMEN.

Verzin:
Hitman shouldn't be about sex

You might want to replay the series, lol.

NewClassic:

First sexualization moment is the first disrobe, at 0:42. The entire motion takes a little under one second. Follow-up of an ass shot. Likewise around a second in length. We'll call it two seconds for easy math. Crotch shot (and fishnets, which I honestly wouldn't have noticed were it not for doing this experiment) immediately following. Under a second. The subsequent footage has roughly twelve seconds of slow-down. The nose-breaking (which was highlighted in the original article), takes place in under half of a second. For those keeping score at home, that's two minutes and twenty seconds of trailer, and roughly three to three and a half seconds of that is intentionally sexually charged. And yet this is grotesque violence-porn? Fewer than four seconds with the vaguest of hints of sexualization and this is the straw the broke the camel's back?

I do not think you understand. I am disgusted that there is any sexualization of violence, period. Exactly how much screentime or the exact measurment of 'skimpiness' of the attire is utterly irrelevant to me. I do not believe there is a percentage of a depiction of sexualized violence of women that suddenly makes it okay.

Besides regardless of how much screen time is devoted to the sexual charge the fact remains that the sole reason these outfits existed was to titlate the audience. That's the only reason that they stripped, the only reason why they wore stilleto heels and fishnet stockings and many other things.

My point is that a creator conciously decided at some point to have 47 kill a group of women and in the process decided that the women getting viciously stabbed, strangled, shot etc needed to be dressed in a sexually provocative way.

No matter how people may slice it, I just find that wrong.

Part of the reason gamers are having a hard time coming to grips with the argument that this is sexual violence-porn is because it doesn't really seem the part.

Odd because, again, the overwhelming majority of cases I've seen is just guys deluding themselves into thinking its an evil anti-male conspiracy. I'm expected to see the phrase 'Gyno-facist' any minute now.

We see far less violence than we would with a Tarantino flick, or even an Uwe Boll movie based on the same property. In terms of sexualization media, this is significantly less sexually charged than games like Bayonetta (in their entirety, much less a single teaser-trailer), X-Blades, or even the sexualization of violence in Silent Hill 2, which was quite rampant.

The problem with that is that Tarantino movies usually have context behind the violence. This scene however (apparently) isn't a representative of what the game is actually going to be like and there isn't any context as to what is going on either. So it's violence that is without any given meaning.

Similarly games like Bayonetta and X-blades are very overt with the sexualization because sexualization is a core part of the game's story or design philosophy. But apparently in Hitman this 47 fellow is asexual and basically just lives to kill and collect his bounty so there's no real contextual reason that makes sense for it to be there.

Finally the sexualization in Silent Hill 2 was between vicious hideous monsters and wasn't being stylish or sleek. It was saying 'this is rape and it is vile and hideous and repulsive'. It acknowledged that the violence was awful and reprehensible and horrific and in a horror game that makes sense.

By comparison this is taking gruesome violence and turning it into a masculine power fantasy.

Instead, we're picking on this trailer because it idolizes and sexualizes violence?
Do the enemies have to be PVC nuns? Not really. Is the trailer tasteless about it? Not hardly.

Again it is not a question of quantity of violence or sex appeal, it's a question of why it's there. As a person who has just done a huge essay on semiotics I need to explain something, everything that is made and created is influenced by some kind of ideology.
There is always some kind of emotional or psychological reasoning behind every image, film, song and painting ever made. That's simple connotation.

That's why this advertisement disturbs me, because the connotations that I denote from it are far worse than the actual product. Maybe it's just a coincidence but this ad really does seem to be saying that they want these women to be killed and they have to look sexy while being killed.

Am I a misogynist for apparently not noticing the gross sexualization of women? Or are others for seeing sex where almost no one else did?

Seriously?

I'd never call you a misogynist but I can't seriously convince myself that the people who are grossed out and turned off by this are the real misogynists while the people who react like petulant children during this controversy and comparing every feminist woman who comments on it to a certain German military force from back in the 40's aren't.

In short, I think I'll close with a quote directly from the linked IGN article:

She absorbs bullets, and then Agent 47 shoots the final nun square in the forehead before she can fire a round at him.

Square in the forehead, huh? If you look for the bad expecting to find it, you surely will.

I take it you've never heard of hyperbole? Yes she made a single incorrect overstatement but that pales in comparison to the way people butchered her original argument over and over again when she first made it.

ElPatron:
Where the hell were you people to complain about sexualized violence back when Silent Hill 2 was released?

Execution was somewhat different.
In Silent Hill 2, its inclusion was meant to repulse and abhor.
In this trailer for Hitman: Absolution, it's intended to titillate.

The issue here is neither sex appeal nor violence, but the trailers inability to differentiate between the two.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked