Last movie watched...

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

For a minute there I wasn't sure this was the movie thread. Fuck, I wasn't even sure it was the 2000AD forum. It was a "check your priviledge" away from being tumblr.

Kick Ass 2 doesn't know what the fuck it's trying to be. Somewhere between a revenge thriller, a parody of masked vigilantes and a really shitty american high school drama. I rolled my eyes a great deal. The kiss at the end was just silly, I was given the impression that she was more like a big sister, not a romantic interest. The action sequences were pretty badass to be fair. Chuck Liddell was in it too, and I could see his nipples.

[JamesC]

and I could see his nipples.

...and after two pages of debate about objectification too.

[shaolin_monkey]

I watched 'Shank' the other night.  It was bizarre.  I wasn't sure if I was watching a UK version of Fallout 3, set in some post-apocalyptic council estate where hoodies rule, or whether it was a stylised interpretation of inner city troubles.  Whichever, I was gripped all the way through, despite a ridiculously predictable ending.

[GrinningChimera]

I'm not sure I want to re-open this can of worms, but I feel the need to defend what I said earlier. For those who missed it, the quote of the day was "Plus you got to see a pair of tits at the end. Can't go wrong there."

For those who haven't seen, it is a shot of a topless lady, on top of a man, with a sign/picture that reads "marry and reproduce" in the background. As an audience we can work out from the rest of the film, that is exactly what is going on in this scene. The characters on the screen have been brainwashed into doing as they are told through subliminal messaging. So while that is no doubt the only reason it was put it, I don't consider it completely unnecessary and believe it has a place in the film.

The way the scene is shot, the woman is on top on the man showing a position of power and dominance. The man is underneath her showing submission and weakness. Also the woman looks happy in the shot. She is not unwillingly sleeping with the guy. Should it be a shameful thing to have nice breasts and be willing to show them off? By suggesting that the scene should not be in the film, you are objectifying and also trying to control women by saying when it is ok and not ok for a woman to show her breasts. She was not forced into doing this. She did it on her own accord. And more power to her for it.

At the end of the day, if you disagree with what I said, they are just a pair of boobs. Everyone has em. You. Me. Everyone. And if you are that shocked by seeing them, maybe you have some growing up to do.
I don't feel I'm objectifying the actress in question by saying that she looks good.

Any females in the house care to comment? 

[TordelBack]

I don't feel I'm objectifying the actress in question by saying that she looks good.

That's not what you said, though. And it's really not about whether boobs should or should not be in movies.

Your current post makes for a decent account, and actually makes for interesting (if understandably defensive) reading, even if I don't agree with all of it.  But it's very different from the remark in the original post, the weight of which was perhaps accentuated by where it came in the thread.

Look, I make these kinds of remarks all the time too, and I think them way more often than that.  Most of us do.  Your post contained a throwaway remark, with no ill intent.  But in the context of a discussion forum and a thread about movies in general it runs the risk of creating a potentially intimidating atmosphere, and we should all maybe think twice before we shout "Look lads, tits!", or refined versions thereof.  That said, I've said worse here and in the real world, and no doubt I will again.  But it isn't right, and I've increasingly come to realise it, in part due to these kinds of discussions.

It's a pretty horrid world we live in when it comes to the everyday treatment of women, and we should all try not to contribute to it. 

[GrinningChimera]

The ending of my initial post was mostly done for humor. Putting a pair of tits behind a spoiler bar sounded pretty funny to me (and still does)

As like my last post, it's more a commentary on society in general and how men can go topless as much as they want but when it comes to lady boobs suddenly its forbidden and all the rest of it.

If any women were offended by my post, I do apologize. It was not my intention.

[Hawkmumbler]

The thing to bare in mind when posting on the internet is that the tone of a post can be read in different ways. I myself was familiar with the context of the remark, and didn't find much to argue with in the initial comment. But I can also see why Richmond might have taken it as a more childish remark.

[Mabs]

Like Tordelback has said, all of us are guilty of having said something which might've been taken as being sexist, and Grinning Chimera isn't the only one. I also made a cheeky remark although not as...'explicitly'.

I think we should move on from it now, or open a seperate thread if we want to continue this discussion.

[Ghost MacRoth]

Really can't see why there's such a fuss, it was clearly a cheeky wee quip.  And even if it wasn't, who cares??

[Eric Plumrose]

If any women were offended by my post, I do apologize. It was not my intention.

You said summat laddish. You were called on it, that's all. No need for all that guff about context and whatever.

[TordelBack]

Looking over this I'm being even more of a dick than usual, so I'll bow out of any further discussion on the topic.

[Spikes]

Who is this Souster Women, and what has she done with Eric?

[pictsy]

I'm not going to be a spokes person for my gender, this is just my personal opinion.  It struck me as just a chauvinistically juvenile comment.  I wasn't especially offended by the comment itself, but did find it systematic to a broader, offensive attitude and felt the same sentiment found in Richard Clements response.

If it were a satirical play on societal expectations that resulted from the context of the film, it fell flat.  Trying to be satirical - as Hawkmonger alludes to - is difficult on the internet, especially when essential references needed to understand the satire are missing.  I am probably out of my depth, however, when commenting on the application of humour and this is probably something we all know.

Still, I can empathise with you, GrinningChimera - at least with your desire to defend yourself.  I didn't like it when I was told I had no heart for a vague criticism of time travelling whales in Star Trek IV.

Some good and interesting point of views were expressed in regards to nudity in cinema in general and could make an intriguing thread.  I personally don't think it is entirely appropriate for this thread, though.

[Eric Plumrose]

Who is this Souster Women, and what has she done with Eric?

I'm having a Shania Twain moment.

[Hawkmumbler]

If it were a satirical play on societal expectations that resulted from the context of the film, it fell flat.  Trying to be satirical - as Hawkmonger alludes to - is difficult on the internet, especially when essential references needed to understand the satire are missing.  I am probably out of my depth, however, when commenting on the application of humour and this is probably something we all know.

Yeah, that is pretty much what i'm trying to get at. Comments can occasionally come off as unintentionally crude (i've been a victim of my own misguided decision to not proof read my posts often enough) and once you've done the deed it can take a bit to justify to people that you only intended a comment with no malice.