Story for Wednesday, September 28, 2016

[Scotty 1,061]

6 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Still, good question: keeping low profile often involves not informing about your progress. So, IS Sirleck aware someone was killing "his" vampires?

Actually, I think he is aware considering he originally called them in to distract Helena and Demetrius and Abner's report that they're not watching Elliot 24/7 would suggest that the vampires are being distracting and Sirleck probably would expect some to be killed.

[hkmaly 490]

45 minutes ago, Scotty said:

55 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Still, good question: keeping low profile often involves not informing about your progress. So, IS Sirleck aware someone was killing "his" vampires?

Actually, I think he is aware considering he originally called them in to distract Helena and Demetrius and Abner's report that they're not watching Elliot 24/7 would suggest that the vampires are being distracting and Sirleck probably would expect some to be killed.

Hmmmm ... true, but he may not be aware how effective Andrea was at it.

[ijuin 572]

22 hours ago, Tom Sewell said:

Only if there are more vampires in Moperville who've been keeping a low profile. Sirleck probably can't just dial up 1-800-VAMPIRE to recruit more.

I thought that the number was TRansylvania 6-5000?

[The Old Hack 2,448]

1 hour ago, ijuin said:

I thought that the number was TRansylvania 6-5000?

They got put out of business back when Twilight made the vampire bubble burst, because no-one took vampires seriously anymore.

[mlooney 3,417]

47 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

They got put out of business back when Twilight made the vampire bubble burst, because no-one took vampires seriously anymore.

Twilight isn't the vampire, Fluttershy is.

Oh.  Wait, you mean the other one.  My bad.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

4 minutes ago, mlooney said:

Twilight isn't the vampire, Fluttershy is.

Oh.  Wait, you mean the other one.  My bad.

There is no comparison. Twilight Sparkle has more sense (common AND horse) in her left rear hoof than may be found in the entirety of the Twilight book series.

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,586]

What upsets me most about those books and movies is that there is now more than a generation who do not associate the name "Twilight" with the work of Rod Serling.

[ijuin 572]

We're traveling through another dimension here...

[CritterKeeper 1,102]

I've most recently come across mention of Twilight movies being given as examples of movies that do pass the Bechdel Test.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

3 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

I've most recently come across mention of Twilight movies being given as examples of movies that do pass the Bechdel Test.

They do. Thing is, the Bechdel Test does not actually serve as to whether something is good or not but solely as a rule of thumb as to whether women are allowed an active and independent presence in the movie.

[partner555 170]

1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:

They do. Thing is, the Bechdel Test does not actually serve as to whether something is good or not but solely as a rule of thumb as to whether women are allowed an active and independent presence in the movie.

And even then, it does not work well as a rule of thumb on how misogynistic a movie is or not. A movie could theoretically star only females, and not mention men at all, and yet be very offensive by portraying only the most negative female stereotypes.

[CritterKeeper 1,102]

Well, people tend to try to apply the Bechdel test to individual movies, when it's most useful as a measure of the movie industry as a whole.  How many of this year's Oscar nominees would pass?  What percent of movies overall would?

There's also the question of how to apply it.  Does a ten second exchange between a mother and her daughter about how late she's allowed to stay out countas a "conversation" between them?  So we add a qualifier that a "conversation" must be at least sixty seconds.  Fine, what about if the two characters are a medical examiner and a detective, and their conversation is entirely about autopsy findings?  Do they pass if the victim was a woman, but fail if they have the exact same conversation about a male victim, just because it means they are talking about the body of a dead man?  Personally, I think that's going a bit too far, but I've seen it applied that way.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

32 minutes ago, CritterKeeper said:

Well, people tend to try to apply the Bechdel test to individual movies, when it's most useful as a measure of the movie industry as a whole.  How many of this year's Oscar nominees would pass?  What percent of movies overall would?

There's also the question of how to apply it.  Does a ten second exchange between a mother and her daughter about how late she's allowed to stay out countas a "conversation" between them?  So we add a qualifier that a "conversation" must be at least sixty seconds.  Fine, what about if the two characters are a medical examiner and a detective, and their conversation is entirely about autopsy findings?  Do they pass if the victim was a woman, but fail if they have the exact same conversation about a male victim, just because it means they are talking about the body of a dead man?  Personally, I think that's going a bit too far, but I've seen it applied that way.

Mph. This is the usual problem when someone invents a rough rule of thumb and others then try to apply it as if it were a precision tool. It originated simply as a filter for whether the inventor could be bothered to see a movie or not. If it passed the test, she might give it a chance; if not, she considered it a lost cause.

It's the same thing with the Kinsey scale. The true value of both the Kinsey scale and the Bechdel test is that they show there is something to pay attention to. Having now served that purpose, we really need to progress to more advanced tools.

[ijuin 572]

If a male character could be swapped with a female character with no change in the story other than the change in name and pronouns, then there's nothing in the story that requires the character's maleness, so IMO the maleness in that instance is irrelevant.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

2 hours ago, ijuin said:

If a male character could be swapped with a female character with no change in the story other than the change in name and pronouns, then there's nothing in the story that requires the character's maleness, so IMO the maleness in that instance is irrelevant.

In your opinion, yes -- but not in the opinion of girls and women looking for role models and heroes of their own. The point of diversity in movies is that as long as we do not have full representation, those who don't get represented feel left out.

(At one point, a teenage gay boy wrote Mark Hamill a fan letter in which he wondered if Luke Skywalker might be gay. Mark Hamill wrote back that he saw absolutely no reason that Luke couldn't be. Such a seemingly small gesture but it allowed a boy to feel included instead of left out...)

[hkmaly 490]

2 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

In your opinion, yes -- but not in the opinion of girls and women looking for role models and heroes of their own. The point of diversity in movies is that as long as we do not have full representation, those who don't get represented feel left out.

Considering how many groups who might want to be represented exists, I think any movie with full representation is not worth watching because there wouldn't be any time for actual plot.  They should divide the diversity into multiple movies. Or make a series.

2 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Mark Hamill wrote back that he saw absolutely no reason that Luke couldn't be.

Weeeeelll ... there is that kiss ... which had other problems as well ... wait, was that removed? When?

[ijuin 572]

Yes, it's hard to include EVERY group without having a larger cast than many stories would call for--how many ethnic groups could you represent in a movie with only three actors, without resorting to making them mixed-ancestry?

Anyway, perhaps I should have said "superfluous" instead of "irrelevant". What I meant was that, if swapping a female character in place of a male character does not change the story, then there is no specific need to have the character be male. That is to say, female characters speaking of him within the story are not doing so (or choosing what they say about him) because of him being a male character.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

8 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Weeeeelll ... there is that kiss ... which had other problems as well ... wait, was that removed? When?

Oh dear. Do you really think a single kiss is any proof of orientation?

[CritterKeeper 1,102]

6 hours ago, ijuin said:

Yes, it's hard to include EVERY group without having a larger cast than many stories would call for--how many ethnic groups could you represent in a movie with only three actors, without resorting to making them mixed-ancestry?

The problem isn't with individual movies so much as it is with the overall presence.  Still, the main problem is that movies seem to start out with "straight cis white male" as the default for main characters, with pretty much every movie having at least one, and many movies having all but one main character fit that category.  You never see an action movie where the main characters are an Asian woman, a black woman, and a First Nations woman, unless that is the movie's particular gimmick.  "Hey, look, they made all the Ghostbusters women!  Let's heap scorn on the movie for months before anyone even sees it!"  There is no other ethnicity that is seen as a must-have the way that almost every movie or TV show has straight cis white men.

[ijuin 572]

Some of that is a chicken and egg issue--The supply of competent Screen Actors Guild members is heavily biased toward straight cis white people, and the SAG prohibits the use of non-SAG actors in starring roles unless you want to entirely forego the SAG, which is trying to maintain a near-monopoly on actors. Want to bring in outsider actors? Then you can kiss goodbye to using any SAG members.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

1 hour ago, ijuin said:

Some of that is a chicken and egg issue--The supply of competent Screen Actors Guild members is heavily biased toward straight cis white people, and the SAG prohibits the use of non-SAG actors in starring roles unless you want to entirely forego the SAG, which is trying to maintain a near-monopoly on actors. Want to bring in outsider actors? Then you can kiss goodbye to using any SAG members.

All that is not a reason for using white actors. It's a justification. Or, if you like, switching the burden of responsibility for racism and bigotry to the SAG. I am not buying it.

[ijuin 572]

Meh, the real reason, IMO, is because the folks financing the films don't want to take chances on anybody who doesn't resemble a previous or current big star--anything that The Producers and the Investors think will cause a net reduction in ticket sales is rejected. Straight cis whites make up the biggest market segment, therefore they are the ones who get catered to, because Hollywood fears losing their dollars more than they fear offending minorities.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

40 minutes ago, ijuin said:

Meh, the real reason, IMO, is because the folks financing the films don't want to take chances on anybody who doesn't resemble a previous or current big star--anything that The Producers and the Investors think will cause a net reduction in ticket sales is rejected. Straight cis whites make up the biggest market segment, therefore they are the ones who get catered to, because Hollywood fears losing their dollars more than they fear offending minorities.

Which once again boils down to cishet racist assumptions. They altogether disregard the fact that it is not about 'offending minorities' but rather making movies for an entire untapped market. They use excuses like "There is no money in movies about women/Blacks/insert minority of choice" and happily bumble on because an unrealised profit doesn't show up in the budget.

[Don Edwards 548]

5 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

Which once again boils down to cishet racist assumptions. They altogether disregard the fact that it is not about 'offending minorities' but rather making movies for an entire untapped market. They use excuses like "There is no money in movies about women/Blacks/insert minority of choice" and happily bumble on because an unrealised profit doesn't show up in the budget.

But, more specifically, it tends to be that writers and directors assume that producers and financier will assume that the audience is bigoted.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

1 minute ago, Don Edwards said:

But, more specifically, it tends to be that writers and directors assume that producers and financier will assume that the audience is bigoted.

*sigh* You may well be right, but for me it is six of one, half a dozen of the other. The racism and bigotry are deeply embedded in the system and will require a great deal of pruning to root them out. A good step is to show that there is indeed money in diversified movies.