Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It is just too easy sometimes, Chongara.

 pretre wrote:
It is just too easy sometimes, Chongara.

Thing is, I'm not even joking. I can't speak to the books, as I've only seen the movies but they're hilarious. Like I just have hard to time believing at any point in the process anyone is thinking "This is to be taken seriously and/or at face value". It's not just "The depiction of vampires" it's the whole thing. The so-bad-it's good acting, the paper thin special effects, the absurd story. It's just all so perfectly hilarious it genuinely blows my mind that it's intended as anything but a self-satire.

No, I totally agree with Chongara. I love Twilight.

 pretre wrote:
Movies better than Sucker Punch that I can recommend:
Fight Club
Clockwork Orange
(snip)
and on and on...

He already said he was 16. I find it hard to believe there exists a 16 year old boy that hasn't seen Clockwork a dozen times.

 Fafnir wrote:
No, I totally agree with Chongara. I love Twilight.

You need some "quality time" in prison.

 Ouze wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Movies better than Sucker Punch that I can recommend:
Fight Club
Clockwork Orange
(snip)
and on and on...

He already said he was 16. I find it hard to believe there exists a 16 year old boy that hasn't seen Clockwork a dozen times.

Why? I've only seen it twice at college...

and.. I hated it.

In my experience, there is something in A Clockwork Orange that resonates within a larger-than-normal ratio of adolescent males. It's what English professors like to pretend the Catcher in the Rye is, to my thinking.

 Breotan wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
No, I totally agree with Chongara. I love Twilight.

You need some "quality time" in prison.

Have you actually sat down and watched the movies? If you did and didn't laugh, follow up question: Are you a robot?

Yep. Say what you will about quality, Breaking Dawn part 2 was easily some of the most fun I've had watching a movie. The girl I was watching it with, and the rest of the people in the theatre may not have appreciated how I appreciated the film, sadly.

 pretre wrote:
Movies better than Sucker Punch that I can recommend:
Fight Club
Clockwork Orange
Moon
Temple of Doom
Time Bandits
Big Trouble Little China
Mad Max (and 2/3)
Brazil
Alien(s)
T2
Spirited Away
Princess Bride
Ghostbusters
Dawn of the Dead
Night of the Living Dead

and on and on...

Its all very subjective - IMO movies that are much worse than Sucker Punch and I feel should be avoided at all costs:

Inception
Wanted
Batman Begins and its sequals
Matrix sequals
Princess Bride
Land of the Dead


and many more

 Ouze wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Movies better than Sucker Punch that I can recommend:
Fight Club
Clockwork Orange
(snip)
and on and on...

He already said he was 16. I find it hard to believe there exists a 16 year old boy that hasn't seen Clockwork a dozen times.

That'd be me, then. I've never heard of it

Selym wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Movies better than Sucker Punch that I can recommend:
Fight Club
Clockwork Orange
(snip)
and on and on...

He already said he was 16. I find it hard to believe there exists a 16 year old boy that hasn't seen Clockwork a dozen times.

That'd be me, then. I've never heard of it

It's something of an odd statement to make. I saw the movie once when I was maybe...20? Said "huh", never felt the urge to watch it again.

I love it. Certainly not a movie for everyone, but for those that can stomach the "ultraviolence," it's an amazing film.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Movies better than Sucker Punch that I can recommend:
Fight Club
Clockwork Orange
(snip)
and on and on...

He already said he was 16. I find it hard to believe there exists a 16 year old boy that hasn't seen Clockwork a dozen times.

Why? I've only seen it twice at college...

and.. I hated it.

That's understandable although I loved the movie, it's definitely not for everyone like the main character is a horrible person and there lot's of uncomfortable scenes, like the film's depiction of rape. That being said I have not seen Sucker Punch (not a film that interests me) but here's a review from Half in the Bag (the same guys who brought the famous 70 minute review of the Phantom Menace) on the film which I assume explains some of the major problems that most critics had with the film.

http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-sucker-punch/

 Fafnir wrote:
Yep. Say what you will about quality, Breaking Dawn part 2 was easily some of the most fun I've had watching a movie. The girl I was watching it with, and the rest of the people in the theatre may not have appreciated how I appreciated the film, sadly.

My wife doesn't like watching her films with me for probably the same reasons

Twighlight had moments of being OK and almost Flash Gordon levels of "so crap it is amazing" at times (although Flash Gordon is in a league of its own for that, obviously ).

I guess I am lucky, my wife hates Twilight, thought Titanic was boring , and really enjoyed Dredd.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
2. the other thing most 'film critics' would have prefered is if we were forced to see the rape, torture, etc. With the fantasy never being shown. Just dark, gritty and depressing, it would have won a freakin' oscar, and been boring as boring can be.

No, not even a little.

Magical realism is loved by critics... if anything it could be said it's way over-indulged in by critics. The problem with Sucker Punch is that its magical realism is very weak, dependant on specific plot macguffins instead of over-lapping emotions and the other things that make magical realism really work.

Pan's Labyrinth was mentioned earlier in the thread. Critics loved that movie (and so did most fans, including myself), because that film understood how magical realism is supposed to work. Snyder just thought it meant you could have a serious film with miserable themes, and also show completey gonzo imagery.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chongara wrote:
Thing is, I'm not even joking. I can't speak to the books, as I've only seen the movies but they're hilarious. Like I just have hard to time believing at any point in the process anyone is thinking "This is to be taken seriously and/or at face value". It's not just "The depiction of vampires" it's the whole thing. The so-bad-it's good acting, the paper thin special effects, the absurd story. It's just all so perfectly hilarious it genuinely blows my mind that it's intended as anything but a self-satire.

This is a thread where a fairly mediocre film is being defended because it ticks all the right boxes for teen males. And we're on a board dedicated to game that is all about the ultra-violence that teen males love.

I'm not saying Twilight is good (what I've seen of it was very bad indeed) but we should be aware that when something ticks the right boxes, you're willing to forgive it for its failings. And that everyone else does exactly the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
I guess I am lucky, my wife hates Twilight, thought Titanic was boring , and really enjoyed Dredd.

Yeah, same here.

Then again the missus was watching Downton Abbey last night, so for every win there's a loss somewhere else.

sebster wrote:
This is a thread where a fairly mediocre film is being defended because it ticks all the right boxes for teen males. And we're on a board dedicated to game that is all about the ultra-violence that teen males love.

Why don't you read some of my posts and then reconsider your reduction.

 Breotan wrote:
The "dance" sequences were metaphors of the girls being raped and the desire to escape the horror their lives had become. When you understand that, the movie takes on an entirely different dynamic.

Actually no. On the surface its a male fantasy with guns and plenty of bubble..

Scratch the surface and it's still a male fantasy being played out as strongly masculine imagery of a fake female fantasy. It self-sexualises in a way that rape victims dont. The film makes an excellent rock video background or You tube shorts, but it doesnt justify its reasoning, frankly I would prefer if it hadnt tried. Had this been adolescent males dreaming, complete with female avatars, to evade mental oppression then it would make a lot more sense.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Why don't you read some of my posts and then reconsider your reduction.

I've read the thread, so I've read your posts. I'm not sure exactly what you'd want me to re-consider.

 Ahtman wrote:
I guess I am lucky, my wife hates Twilight, thought Titanic was boring , and really enjoyed Dredd.

Your wife is more of a man than most men.

That's a compliment.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I guess I am lucky, my wife hates Twilight, thought Titanic was boring , and really enjoyed Dredd.

Your wife is more of a man than most men.

That's a compliment.

+1

Please don't let this thread die!

To those of you hating on Twilight, the general feeling I get from Twilight haters is the same feeling I get from Justin Beiber haters. It has nothing to do with the subject material, and everything to do with a dislike and perceived superiority to the audience it panders to. Really, the Twilight films aren't that bad, neither is Justin Bieber. Yet people treat them as if they're some monstrosity that is destroying their ability to enjoy their own preferred material. Does it really matter that the Vampires and Werewolves in the series are not what is classically considered good Vampires or Werewolves? There is still material being produced which adheres to their more conventional material, and you can still watch that. No one is forcing you to watch it against your will. (Disbarring significant others of course.) That point of view just annoys me as being artificial and not actually referring to the base cause of their distaste. And this coming from someone who is not a fanboy by any means.

When it comes to Sucker Punch I don't feel it was bad really, actually I rather enjoyed it the first time through, not it is not a movie that I would watch again of my own volition. And it is nowhere near Ultraviolet levels of bad, a movie which I think is the worst movie I have actually watched the whole way through. Is it deep? I don't really consider it very deep, but it did give me exactly what it advertised, a decent romp with sexily clad females and explosions and steam powered WW1 Picklehaub wearing Germans. That's all I watched it for and it didn't let me down. The added Insane Asylum plot, which was decent as these things go, was just icing on the cake and the thin veneer or sequentialism needed to get the characters to the next action scene.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Really, the Twilight films aren't that bad, neither is Justin Bieber.

This is where you lost me. Yes, they are objectively bad movies. There are certain things that good movies have. Things like pacing. Character arcs. Grown adults not falling in love with toddlers/babies.

 Ratbarf wrote:
To those of you hating on Twilight, the general feeling I get from Twilight haters is the same feeling I get from Justin Beiber haters. It has nothing to do with the subject material, and everything to do with a dislike and perceived superiority to the audience it panders to.

1. The portrayal of vampires from monsters battling eternal thirst to teenage heart throbs.
2. Said heart throbs sparkling. Gee being a vampire is hard.
3. Jacob imprinting a baby.
4. The cesarian via teeth.
5. Utterly unlikeable characters.
6. This is going to be pretty much superiority over the fans, but twimoms.

I've got nothing against Bieber. He's this generations (inferior) version of the backstreet boys and nsync. He caters to young girls, and while I don't particularly agree with some of the messages he presents, at the end of the day he's just another boy band. His attempts to be gangsta as time goes on is kind of funny though.

Honestly, I feel like Twighlight and Sucker Punch are pretty damn similar in the kind of gender demographic they aim for. If Edward was fighting an inner struggle for his humanity while sometimes killing the crap out of people, and Jacob acting much more feral and aloof, not to mention much more violent and animalistic than he is, and things were much more dark and depressing in the world of twighlight, the average guy might actually like it, right? Well too bad, twilight isn't made for guys.

Selym wrote:

 focusedfire wrote:
It was yet another Womens Empowerment movie that preaches men are bad.

Except for the man in baby doll's action scenes, who plays the role of a father figure she never had,.

What are you talking about. The man in the actions scenes is there to represent what is, imo, the worst of men.

Didn't you catch that, that the man from the action scenes was there to represent the orderly that was gentle with her but still allowed all of the bad stuff to happen(took her to the torture room)?
The man in the action scenes was a coward that constantly delivered her into horrible situations rather than acting to keep her out of these needless(read pointless) battles.

Seriously, focusedfire was right. This was a movie that dripped with misandry. The story portrays all men as evil users/abusers of women while trying to deliver this message in a manner that was an insult to both male and female intelligence.
Really, the movie was like, "Hey, here are pretty girls dressed skimpily and action scenes with guns, swords, explosions, Steampunk(gotta try to cash in on that fad), WWII planes and even a Dragon." "You people are so easily distracted that you will not notice the primary message of male gender hate." Thing is, If shineys and explosions don't distract a person from the story then the movie becomes a horrible insult

Try imagining that all of the roles are reversed in the movie. That it is an asylum full of teen boys being used and abused by grown women and the fantasy scene is from a 1 to boys point of view. Would the story still have the same appeal for you?


For both my wife and I, the movie failed on all levels. Saw it in the theater with my wife because she liked the trailers. About a third of the way through she turned to me and said, "this movie sucks". She was prepared to leave right then.
I replied, "How much you want to bet that she dies in the end?". We decided to stay to see if the movie got any better. It didn't and she died as a martyr/hero. The movie was that predictable and that horrible.

As to those who keep implying that the movie had depth because it was a story within a story,..... this story telling tool is so cutting edge that it has only been around since at least 1585 AD(when Shakespear used this technique) .

I've got a couple of movies to add to the list of suggested viewing:

Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead
Deer Hunter
Jacobs Ladder
Naked Lunch
Identity
Being John Malkovich

There are many more, some of which others have alreasy suggested(clockwork orange).

 Bromsy wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
Really, the Twilight films aren't that bad, neither is Justin Bieber.

This is where you lost me. Yes, they are objectively bad movies. There are certain things that good movies have. Things like pacing. Character arcs. Grown adults not falling in love with toddlers/babies.

I question anyones objectivity with regard to good or bad films - especially film critics who usually have none.

Well rounded characters and pacing are sadly missing from many of the more lauded films - which are normally turgid, full of cardboard cut outs rather than characters with whome no empathy can be generated - but again this is my view and equally by no means objective.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Really, the Twilight films aren't that bad,

I took no issue with what you said, until this point. I love Twilight (for all the wrong reasons, but I still love it), but Twilight is that bad. That's what makes it so good

neither is Justin Bieber.

Complete agreement here. Same teen hearthrob we've had with every generation since the fifties.

Yet people treat them as if they're some monstrosity that is destroying their ability to enjoy their own preferred material. Does it really matter that the Vampires and Werewolves in the series are not what is classically considered good Vampires or Werewolves? There is still material being produced which adheres to their more conventional material, and you can still watch that. No one is forcing you to watch it against your will. (Disbarring significant others of course.) That point of view just annoys me as being artificial and not actually referring to the base cause of their distaste. And this coming from someone who is not a fanboy by any means.

Now, this part is entirely true, but that's not the problem with Twilight. Hell, you could argue that Twilight has done good things by proving to the Hollywood bean-counters that women are a viable market for big budget blockbusters, as dubious as its quality may be. That said, the problems with Twilight don't deal with its mythology (which, honestly, is a stupid as hell thing to complain about, since there are plenty of things out there that embellish the mythologies they're based on, and you're only hearing people complain about Twilight in this regard because of its popularity). Essentially, the core ideas and themes it presents are just so awful.

Bromsy wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
Really, the Twilight films aren't that bad, neither is Justin Bieber.

This is where you lost me. Yes, they are objectively bad movies. There are certain things that good movies have. Things like pacing. Character arcs. Grown adults not falling in love with toddlers/babies.

They have pacing, albeit somewhat sacrificed on the alter of both brevity and adherence to the books.
They have very long character arcs, arguably that's all the series is.
Ever seen Lolita?

Necroshea wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
To those of you hating on Twilight, the general feeling I get from Twilight haters is the same feeling I get from Justin Beiber haters. It has nothing to do with the subject material, and everything to do with a dislike and perceived superiority to the audience it panders to.

1. The portrayal of vampires from monsters battling eternal thirst to teenage heart throbs.
2. Said heart throbs sparkling. Gee being a vampire is hard.
3. Jacob imprinting a baby.
4. The cesarian via teeth.
5. Utterly unlikeable characters.
6. This is going to be pretty much superiority over the fans, but twimoms.

I've got nothing against Bieber. He's this generations (inferior) version of the backstreet boys and nsync. He caters to young girls, and while I don't particularly agree with some of the messages he presents, at the end of the day he's just another boy band. His attempts to be gangsta as time goes on is kind of funny though.

Honestly, I feel like Twighlight and Sucker Punch are pretty damn similar in the kind of gender demographic they aim for. If Edward was fighting an inner struggle for his humanity while sometimes killing the crap out of people, and Jacob acting much more feral and aloof, not to mention much more violent and animalistic than he is, and things were much more dark and depressing in the world of twighlight, the average guy might actually like it, right? Well too bad, twilight isn't made for guys.

Everything that you wrote in that list is an opinion and not necessarily the most prevalent one. The female protagonist in Underworld is pretty much Edward with tits aimed at males instead of females.
I don't really understand why everyone gets annoyed at the sparkling part, it's not that different from not showing up in reflections or being unable to cross flowing water/eat garlic. It's merely an identifier/occasional hindrance. Plus, why can't Vampires sparkle? Do they always have to be dark moody creatures? If they were real you know there would totally be a section of the Vampire population that would love Glee.
While potentially morally ambiguous in our culture, it really isn't that bad, think of it as a betrothal at birth. Something that happened quite a bit, just because he's imprinted on her doesn't mean he's going to be mating with her anytime soon.
I don't have much on that one, other than it's kind of amusing.
Seeing as plenty of people like them that would seem to not be the case.
Are they fundamentally all that different from Trekkie dads? Or even GW dads? (Seriously, I'm totally going to dress up my kid as a grot for Halloween at least once, and go around screaming "FOR THE EMPRAH!!!" when we play fight.)

Captain Avatar wrote:

Selym wrote:

 focusedfire wrote:
It was yet another Womens Empowerment movie that preaches men are bad.

Except for the man in baby doll's action scenes, who plays the role of a father figure she never had,.

What are you talking about. The man in the actions scenes is there to represent what is, imo, the worst of men.

Didn't you catch that, that the man from the action scenes was there to represent the orderly that was gentle with her but still allowed all of the bad stuff to happen(took her to the torture room)?
The man in the action scenes was a coward that constantly delivered her into horrible situations rather than acting to keep her out of these needless(read pointless) battles.

Seriously, focusedfire was right. This was a movie that dripped with misandry. The story portrays all men as evil users/abusers of women while trying to deliver this message in a manner that was an insult to both male and female intelligence.
Really, the movie was like, "Hey, here are pretty girls dressed skimpily and action scenes with guns, swords, explosions, Steampunk(gotta try to cash in on that fad), WWII planes and even a Dragon." "You people are so easily distracted that you will not notice the primary message of male gender hate." Thing is, If shineys and explosions don't distract a person from the story then the movie becomes a horrible insult

Try imagining that all of the roles are reversed in the movie. That it is an asylum full of teen boys being used and abused by grown women and the fantasy scene is from a 1 to boys point of view. Would the story still have the same appeal for you?


For both my wife and I, the movie failed on all levels. Saw it in the theater with my wife because she liked the trailers. About a third of the way through she turned to me and said, "this movie sucks". She was prepared to leave right then.
I replied, "How much you want to bet that she dies in the end?". We decided to stay to see if the movie got any better. It didn't and she died as a martyr/hero. The movie was that predictable and that horrible.

As to those who keep implying that the movie had depth because it was a story within a story,..... this story telling tool is so cutting edge that it has only been around since at least 1585 AD(when Shakespear used this technique) .

I've got a couple of movies to add to the list of suggested viewing:

Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead
Deer Hunter
Jacobs Ladder
Naked Lunch
Identity
Being John Malkovich

There are many more, some of which others have alreasy suggested(clockwork orange).

Imagining it reversed comes across as a porno in my mind. Men are dicks by and large because we have them. I don't really see how that makes this film Misandry. In case you didn't notice, the only female roles in the film were either a nerds wet dream or a bumbling and utterly incompetent doctor/psychologist who had never realised that her orderlies, a) had a rape room and b) were forging her signature on lobotomy papers. Can't say either scenario screams female empowerment at me.