Post: #76

Not to mention.
Non-hetero, alien-kin are not capable of patriarchy or misogyny.

One might almost say that the alien-kin are also victims to the evil corporate patriarchy of Weiland-Yutani...!

Post: #77

The aliens in the Aliens movies are all dickheads.

So Ripley is 'literally fighting the patriarchy'.

Post: #78

(01-15-2017 11:18 AM)spokepoker Wrote:  I think the feminists hate Ripley character because she had to work hard to survive, to think things through and prepare, she was weak and had to learn to be tough. She did not survive through all the movies due to the powerful magic of vagina, and that is something they cannot accept. Besides, she was not weighing 90lbs throwing 240lbs linebackers around like scarlet spider in the avengers movies. Cause vagina and yoga.

My take on it is that feminists hate the Ripley character because she reflects pretty accurately the apotheosis of all feminists: she's an irritable, fairly sexless, masculine asshole. Rewatch the movie again, see how she treats her fellow crewmembers, and tell me you'd seriously be willing to spend more than about two days in close quarters with her -- regardless of whether or not you get to fuck her. The most masculine guys on the ship -- the ship's two engineers -- can't fucking stand her. Maybe it's just my personal aesthetics, but I have yet to see any film -- and yes, that includes Heartbreakers and Working Girl -- in which Sigourney Weaver has ever looked remotely sexual or appealing on the eye.

The interesting part is that when you go looking for Ridley Scott's thoughts on the subject of the original Alien, it turns out the decision to make Ripley a woman was a bit later in the process. Ripley was originally male in the script. But Scott had the idea that it would make the film less predictable to have Ripley a female and the final survivor when the movies he believed formed Alien's genre mainly had male protagonists. His justification for doing this, as he put it, was because he respected strong women and grew up around strong women. In short: it was an Oedipal thing because he was the child of a domineering, authoritarian mother in the Army, where presumably his father was absent for long stretches. What he gives us, then, is a male hero with a vagina.

In short, Scott was not setting out to make a groundbreaking hero. He was in essence using the audiences's expectations of a standard male protagonist against them to keep suspense in the movie. Feminists hate Ripley's character because she's basically a man in a woman's body. It's the logical endpoint of feminism, and they don't like being confronted with that.

It gets even more hilarious when Aliens comes along.

Allow me a short digression to explain the hilarity. People cheer James Cameron on because he supposedly creates "powerful" or "feminist" characters, but such people are seeing only the surface of his films. Take Terminator 2, for example, and Linda Hamilton's nice biceps:



Notice that she's in an insane asylum when we first meet her? That she behaves like a complete violent fruitloop, has lost all real feeling for her own son, even tries to murder a father right in front of his own wife and son? Her character arc in the movie is to move away from the tough, you-go-grrl image to actually care about her kid, and to even develop a certain respect for the machine father sent back to protect the boy. She's utterly fucking crazy, first cousin to a machine herself. That's James Cameron's ideas about girls with guns.

Similar holds for Aliens. Cameron takes feminism and pushes it subtly back to patriarchal norms: Ripley is only permitted by the plot to intervene when there aren't enough men left standing to do anything else, Hicks basically becomes Newt's father figure, and the only you-go-grrl in the film is Vasquez the smartgun operator, who looks a hell of a lot like a man, is overly masculine compared with a lot of the men around her, and who is implied as pretty unhinged herself.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #79

Yep.
In a world where Bruce Jenner is more 'feminine' than so many female SJW types...
You know your society has lost the plot.

Post: #80

(01-15-2017 12:14 AM)HermeticAlly Wrote:  Saw this today. I really enjoyed it, thought this was a solid flick. And the fact that it pisses off SJWs just made me even happier to pay for it.

My feelings about it were the same

(01-15-2017 06:52 AM)catoblepa Wrote:  I thought it was good, and most importantly it had a decent pace unlike many contemporary sci-fi movies which are overstuffed with CGI sequences assaulting your senses and leaving you with no real substance storytellingwise.

It also poses some deeper questions about the evolution of technology,
how future robots integrate to serve humans, and how to make the most out of the hardest situations.

Post: #81

Feminists stepped up their whining.

Apparently, the hero Chris Pratt is a "manipulative rapist who forces the woman,
takes advantage of "Stockholm Syndrome" and then he gets away with everything"

http://twitter.com/paperdoll/status/820309087267209222

Post: #82

http://www.flickfilosopher.com/2016/12/p...space.html

Another feminist tries her hardest to spin the reality of Chris Pratt waking up Jlaw
in order to save her life and the other 4999 passengers lives,

into "Chris Pratt is a space rapist who rapes her by gaslighting her" and some more of this type of BS

Post: #83

(01-15-2017 07:43 PM)spokepoker Wrote:  The aliens in the Aliens movies are all dickheads.

So Ripley is 'literally fighting the patriarchy'.

Post: #84

Very funny how pro-masculinity Passengers will end up making about 10 - 15 times or more profit than the feminist Ghostbusters.

Will the leftist Holywood finally wake up now?

Post: #85

(02-02-2017 09:39 AM)torid Wrote:  Very funny how pro-masculinity Passengers will end up making about 10 - 15 times or more profit than the feminist Ghostbusters.

Will the leftist Holywood finally wake up now?

Japan is at least.

Sony to Take $1 Billion Writedown on Movie Business

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...e-business

-Japanese company to sell part of stake in medical site M3
-CEO of Sony Entertainment announced departure two weeks ago

Sony Corp. said it will take a 112 billion yen ($1 billion) writedown in its movie business after reviewing the future profitability of its operations.
The company said it would book the charge in the fiscal third quarter and is examining how that will affect its forecasts. To offset part of the loss, the company also said it would sell shares in the medical web service M3 Inc. to Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s Japan unit, in a deal worth about 37 billion yen.
The announcement comes two weeks after Sony said the chief executive officer of Sony Entertainment, Michael Lynton, is stepping down after a 13-year run. The studio has struggled recently, including with last year’s Ghostbusters sequel and a movie based on the Angry Birds video game. Sony warned in June the division was at a risk of posting more losses.
“There has been a suspicion in the market that Sony doesn’t have a firm grip on the movie business, but still the amount is a surprise,” said Kazunori Ito, an analyst at Morningstar Investment Services. “That said, with Lynton’s departure and this writedown, all the bad news is out and the attention can turn on their plan for the coming fiscal year.”

Post: #86

(01-18-2017 05:31 AM)torid Wrote:  http://www.flickfilosopher.com/2016/12/p...space.html

Another feminist tries her hardest to spin the reality of Chris Pratt waking up Jlaw
in order to save her life and the other 4999 passengers lives,

into "Chris Pratt is a space rapist who rapes her by gaslighting her" and some more of this type of BS

Space rapist?!



"Some people call me the space rapist, yeah. Some call me the "Gangster of Love."





Yeah, you'll never hear that song the same way again.

Post: #87

(01-15-2017 09:26 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(01-15-2017 11:18 AM)spokepoker Wrote:  I think the feminists hate Ripley character because she had to work hard to survive, to think things through and prepare, she was weak and had to learn to be tough. She did not survive through all the movies due to the powerful magic of vagina, and that is something they cannot accept. Besides, she was not weighing 90lbs throwing 240lbs linebackers around like scarlet spider in the avengers movies. Cause vagina and yoga.

My take on it is that feminists hate the Ripley character because she reflects pretty accurately the apotheosis of all feminists: she's an irritable, fairly sexless, masculine asshole. Rewatch the movie again, see how she treats her fellow crewmembers, and tell me you'd seriously be willing to spend more than about two days in close quarters with her -- regardless of whether or not you get to fuck her. The most masculine guys on the ship -- the ship's two engineers -- can't fucking stand her. Maybe it's just my personal aesthetics, but I have yet to see any film -- and yes, that includes Heartbreakers and Working Girl -- in which Sigourney Weaver has ever looked remotely sexual or appealing on the eye.

The interesting part is that when you go looking for Ridley Scott's thoughts on the subject of the original Alien, it turns out the decision to make Ripley a woman was a bit later in the process. Ripley was originally male in the script. But Scott had the idea that it would make the film less predictable to have Ripley a female and the final survivor when the movies he believed formed Alien's genre mainly had male protagonists. His justification for doing this, as he put it, was because he respected strong women and grew up around strong women. In short: it was an Oedipal thing because he was the child of a domineering, authoritarian mother in the Army, where presumably his father was absent for long stretches. What he gives us, then, is a male hero with a vagina.

In short, Scott was not setting out to make a groundbreaking hero. He was in essence using the audiences's expectations of a standard male protagonist against them to keep suspense in the movie. Feminists hate Ripley's character because she's basically a man in a woman's body. It's the logical endpoint of feminism, and they don't like being confronted with that.

It gets even more hilarious when Aliens comes along.

Allow me a short digression to explain the hilarity. People cheer James Cameron on because he supposedly creates "powerful" or "feminist" characters, but such people are seeing only the surface of his films. Take Terminator 2, for example, and Linda Hamilton's nice biceps:



Notice that she's in an insane asylum when we first meet her? That she behaves like a complete violent fruitloop, has lost all real feeling for her own son, even tries to murder a father right in front of his own wife and son? Her character arc in the movie is to move away from the tough, you-go-grrl image to actually care about her kid, and to even develop a certain respect for the machine father sent back to protect the boy. She's utterly fucking crazy, first cousin to a machine herself. That's James Cameron's ideas about girls with guns.

Similar holds for Aliens. Cameron takes feminism and pushes it subtly back to patriarchal norms: Ripley is only permitted by the plot to intervene when there aren't enough men left standing to do anything else, Hicks basically becomes Newt's father figure, and the only you-go-grrl in the film is Vasquez the smartgun operator, who looks a hell of a lot like a man, is overly masculine compared with a lot of the men around her, and who is implied as pretty unhinged herself.

He said on a interview the reason the Aliens reproduce by getting in people bodies and breaking out from their chest was a way to simulate birth pain and rape, he said he wanted the males characters get rape, if you watch the movies you see it, the aliens break out men chests like a penis, it was a figurative way of male rape.

Post: #88

I recently saw Passengers and while it wasn't amazing it hit a lot of the right notes and I found it a worthwhile couple of hours.

Man is a mechanic and can actually do things. Woman is a writer who hasn't done anything with her life and admits as much, living off her famous father's wealth.

Ideas like that cause feminists to shit the bed.

Post: #89

(02-03-2017 03:39 AM)ball dont lie Wrote:  Man is a mechanic and can actually do things. Woman is a writer who hasn't done anything with her life and admits as much, living off her famous father's wealth.

Ideas like that cause feminists to shit the bed.

In Passengers there were put as much pro-masculinity and red pill ideas as it was possible in a big budget 2017 Sony production.

Also the fact that they didn't kill the main male character Chris Pratt is also an achievement in itself,
as in most SF and action movies the male characters are killed off like flies.

Post: #90

Very surprised anyone saw redpill in this one.

Basic chick flick in space.

Raspy vocal fry female with short hair check. Female on male violence scene check. Male bad guy, woman innoncent victim check. No kids despite living together for 70 year, yeah ok, maybe she was too busy getting a career on the spaceship.

Hollywood has been on an obvious sci-fi rampage these last years, Star Wars, Arrival, Passengers, even Interstellar and add Hidden Figures. It is a concerted effort to make sci-fi more "inclusive and friendly" to women in the process ruining it like anything else this toxic feminism touches.

Good thing I torrented this movie, not paying for any Hollywood movie anymore unless Clint Eastwood produces it.

Post: #91

I wouldn't describe it as pro-masculine, but it certainly wasn't full of SJW bullshit.

It was an ok movie, 5/10

Post: #92

Pro-masculinity? Guy puts chick on pedestal so high that he forgoes common decency. His actions were pretty pathetic as in "who the hell does such a thing?" He does redeem himself later by saving the day, but hey that's Hollywood.

Post: #93

No, he doesn't put her on a pedestal at all. He was the first victim of a damage to the ship, and he chooses himself the hottest girl he could find, wakes her up, and bangs her.

That's why feminists are going insane hating furiously this movie.

Post: #94

(02-02-2017 09:39 AM)torid Wrote:  Very funny how pro-masculinity Passengers will end up making about 10 - 15 times or more profit than the feminist Ghostbusters.

Will the leftist Holywood finally wake up now?

They are "awake".
They know the truth, that is how they're able to so precisely define a narrative that useful idiots can't live without.

Those that believe the globalists are "asleep" when they read between the lines of Hollywood propaganda are fooling themselves. Hollywood knows exactly what its doing with every piece of media made for mass consumption.

You could never control civilization so perfectly without first having a firm grasp on human nature to know how best to manipulate it. Many of the elites may be more "awake" than any of us.

Post: #95

I finally got around to watching the movie. The only way it could have been better is if Chris Pratt decided to wake up two females instead of one. Imagine the outrage!

Post: #96

(03-01-2017 09:32 AM)WhatTheFuck Wrote:  I finally got around to watching the movie. The only way it could have been better is if Chris Pratt decided to wake up two females instead of one. Imagine the outrage!

I agree. But then it would be a straight out threesome-porn movie

Post: #97

I've finally got around to watching it. I don't think any of the films critics would have tolerated even a fraction of the time the protagonist spent in attention-free isolation.

How long do you think you'd have lasted if you woke up alone?

Post: #98

Eh heh heh.

In the film (according to what I've read on Wikipedia), the couple die without having descendants.

In the original Passengers screenplay (from what I recall), Jim and Aurora land on whatever Planet-MacGuffin they were aiming for, and their ship opens with a horde of various-colored children created from the genomic samples of the passengers of the ship.

Both endings are much-aligned with leftist values, whites dying without children in the first, and the future of humanity being a potpourri of blended coloureds in the second.

Fuck that!

If I were Jim, all male-genomic samples from the passengers other than mine would be destroyed, and any off-spring would be created from my genomic sample and that of the female passengers.

The F1 descendants would be half-siblings, but despite the inbreeding they would have higher expected cognitive ability than from sampling the DNA of the other male passengers. Plus, I'd be reluctant to use my dying days to construct the offspring of other males.

On the ship, I would even have a powerful computer at hand to assist with the genetic drift and inbreeding simulations to confirm.

Post: #99

(04-15-2017 02:41 AM)Kabal Wrote:  The F1 descendants would be half-siblings, but despite the inbreeding they would have higher expected cognitive ability than from sampling the DNA of the other male passengers. Plus, I'd be reluctant to use my dying days to construct the offspring of other males.

Inbreeding is usually only a problem if done over the generations.

If you introduce totally new genes each generation, it wouldn't be terrible.

I like how they kept the ending mostly ambigious, so we can form our own conclusions.

Post: #100

(04-15-2017 04:12 AM)Transsimian Wrote:  

(04-15-2017 02:41 AM)Kabal Wrote:  The F1 descendants would be half-siblings, but despite the inbreeding they would have higher expected cognitive ability than from sampling the DNA of the other male passengers. Plus, I'd be reluctant to use my dying days to construct the offspring of other males.

Inbreeding is usually only a problem if done over the generations.

If you introduce totally new genes each generation, it wouldn't be terrible.

Preaching to the choir... obviously, I know.

Inbreeding in quantitative genetics is not something colloquial and binary (such as in popular consciousness) like fucking ones' siblings, parents, and cousins and/or whatnot, but rather it's generally defined by departures from Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium and a result of effective population sizes.

Even in my off-the-cuff thought-experiment in that particular sci-fi scenario, it's precisely why I would leverage the computer to re-affirm via simulations my intuition