Post: #1

Quote:...but that only got them so far. In Tolkien’s largely female-free “Hobbit,” Ms. Boyens said, “The lack of feminine energy becomes very evident.”

“And oppressive,” Ms. Walsh added.

To work toward a solution they added a “Lord of the Rings” character — the ethereal elf Galadriel, played by Cate Blanchett — to the “Hobbit” story. The move prompted a dust-up among some Tolkien fans, but Ms. Walsh and Ms. Boyens said it was important to them, both as storytellers and as women, to add a female character who could bring more emotional depth to the spectacle.

“That’s really important if you are going to touch the audience in a meaningful way,” Ms. Boyens said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/movies...lobal-home

I respect Ms. Walsh and Boyens for participating in the creation of the awesome Lord of the Rings trilogy and her for being Peter Jackson's partner for the last 20 years, but this is really awful. How dare they?

It's not the problem that it's a book that I care about, but the general assumption that it's impossible to have energy, emotional depth or touch the audience if you don't have a major female character. That's grossly chauvinistic! I am appalled by that ridiculous statement.

Imagine if a male producer said the following:

Quote:But that only got them so far. In the book’s largely male-free world, he said, “The lack of masculine energy becomes very evident.”

“And oppressive,” another man added.

To work toward a solution they added another character — the ethereal male warrior, played by Jason Statham — to the story. The move prompted a dust-up among some fans, but the producers said it was important to them, both as storytellers and as men, to add a male character who could bring more emotional depth to the spectacle.

“That’s really important if you are going to touch the audience in a meaningful way,” he said.

There would be world outrage, lawsuits and movie boycotts. But in this case... *crickets*

Post: #2

another gem

"By the early 1990s Ms. Walsh had ended her relationship with Mr. Sinclair (amicably, he returned to collaborate on the “Rings” movies), and was pestering Mr. Jackson, with whom she was now romantically tied, to make what would turn out to be “Heavenly Creatures.”

She must really give some great head.

WIA

Post: #3

Post: #4

It's true, only a woman can touch me in a meaningful way

Post: #5

Jackson may be some kind of genius, but he's physically disgusting. As is she in the above pic.

Funny three other great directors -- Hitchcock, Guillermo Del Toro, and Orson Welles later in life ( he was very good looking when young) seemed very fat.

Post: #6

He took some of the Lord of the Rings money he made and put it into a lap-band or other (undisclosed) weight reduction surgery. He looks less infantile than he did in the past.

Post: #7

i kind of agree. unless theres a sex interest in a movie, i get bored way too easily.

we are only human after all, and as such we hate when the sexuality of our humanity is omitted from an otherwise decent story.

Post: #8

Reminds me of what I said about Entourage, and why feminists hated it, but not shows like Mad Men that objectify women at least as much:

"Feminists looove to hate on Entourage, supposedly because women are objectified relentlessly on the show. Yet they don't really have a problem with Mad Men or others (Californication too maybe, don't know well enough to say). I think the real reason is because women don't figure too prominently in the show, and that pisses them off to no end. The show is about guys having fun being themselves, and doing what guys like to do. The focus is on the camaraderie of the guys, and that's why it's so appealing to men. In the Mad Men atmosphere women can still scheme their way into importance and power. In Entourage, there's just no place for them. Women can't stand it when high value guys ignore girls and go off and do their own thing, when they never let women really enter the picture and their friendship precedes pussy. A woman can't win in that kind of atmosphere."

To a woman, there's nothing worse than indifference from a high value man. Indifference from a group of high value men is even worse.

When men see a group of women getting together and doing something 'girly,' like having a baby shower, they are *quite* content in staying out of it.

Post: #9

I can't say I have a strong interest in staring at these faces through 3 films. Adding Cate Blanchett makes the prospect much more palatable.

She also appears to be the only "name" actor in the film. Betting hundreds of millions of dollars on a trilogy of films without at least one bankable name well known in America seems extremely risky. Especially since Peter Jackson has only put out expensive flops like King Kong in the decade since 2002, when Lord of the Rings was completed.

Plus Blanchett is Australian. So while bankable, she runs a lot cheaper than a Hollywood known name.

Since Elves age so much more slowly, it's not just Cate Blanchett back in but Orlando Bloom as well. But they seem to be holding off on announcing his participation until 2014 when part III "There and Back again" comes to the screen. Whereas Blanchett is already appearing in trailers for part I.

Post: #10

This is just another example of how geeks and feminists feed off of each other in a never-ending cycle of lame. No offense to any self-identified geeks on here, but I'm talking about the real betas.

As Basil alludes to above, whenever men get together and do something or make something cool, it's only a matter of time before women show up trying to crash the party. Sometimes the women are cool and are legitimately into the thing. Sometimes they show up looking for attention. Sooner or later though, the feminists show up and start making demands. Geeks don't understand women, so they try to placate them, which is the worst thing you can do with feminists. The more you give in, the more they will demand.

That being said, does this broad's statement really fire you guys up this much? She's talking shit and trying to sound important. "Feminine energy," "oppressive," that's just some self-important chick flapping her gums. This is also how Hollywood works. Producers tweak scripts and add and remove characters to appeal to different demographics. It often makes for crappy art, but it hardly rises to the level of injustice.

Post: #11

But that's the point. I don't mind at all adding female (or any other *attribute*) characters to appeal to female audience, to lure men with sex appeal, to add a love element to the story, just for the sake of having another character, or etc. That's all fine.

Adding it because "movies without female characters don't have emotional depth, lack energy, and are oppressive", however, is pure bullshit. To put it in other words, I have never, but really never, viewed fantasy as some kind of battleground of the sexes where a score needs to be evened. To see that Ms. Walsh does is really sad.

Even if it's not injustice and she is just flapping her gums to seem important, surely you can't deny that, if a male producer ever said the reverse, he would immediately be slammed as sexist.

Post: #12

(12-02-2012 10:49 PM)basilransom Wrote:  Reminds me of what I said about Entourage, and why feminists hated it, but not shows like Mad Men that objectify women at least as much:

"Feminists looove to hate on Entourage, supposedly because women are objectified relentlessly on the show. Yet they don't really have a problem with Mad Men or others (Californication too maybe, don't know well enough to say). I think the real reason is because women don't figure too prominently in the show, and that pisses them off to no end. The show is about guys having fun being themselves, and doing what guys like to do. The focus is on the camaraderie of the guys, and that's why it's so appealing to men. In the Mad Men atmosphere women can still scheme their way into importance and power. In Entourage, there's just no place for them. Women can't stand it when high value guys ignore girls and go off and do their own thing, when they never let women really enter the picture and their friendship precedes pussy. A woman can't win in that kind of atmosphere."

To a woman, there's nothing worse than indifference from a high value man. Indifference from a group of high value men is even worse.

When men see a group of women getting together and doing something 'girly,' like having a baby shower, they are *quite* content in staying out of it.

Unfortunately, these functions are becoming increasingly co-ed. A few years ago my boys out in LA got roped into going to one of these for one of the circle. They were miserable, and vowed never to go to another shower, even if feelings got hurt. Men have NO place at baby showers. A couple that I know here in NY had one scheduled for their first child, but the kid actually arrived early, so instead of a shower, it became a "come meet the baby" type function. My boy's grandfather wasn't there, and he comes to every family function. I asked where he was, because his grandparents are in their 90's and I was concerned that maybe he wasn't well. He said "He's fine - he just doesn't believe men should go to baby showers." I laughed, because it wasn't actually a shower anymore, but he still didn't come.

One of my cousins didn't have a bachelor party because his wife didn't like them. A couple of years before they got married, we all did a bachelor thing for another friend. Someone ran their mouths to their girlfriend/wife about the activities, and the next day she was on the phone to my cuz complaining about what we did, and how she was uncomfortable with him being around strippers, etc. This was when the were dating. Not engaged or married yet. So when they did end up engaged, you knew a bachelor party was out of the question. He knuckled under to her. Their wedding was a destination thing, at a small resort in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. A co-bachelor/bachelorette celebration was organized for a place in town. She didn't even come to that. One of their neighbors called to tell them that someone tried to break into their house, but the police were called, no one got into the house, and all was good. She decided she was too upset to go to the party, so she stayed at the resort. Of course, some of her girls decided they should stay with her, so they didn't go either. Thankfully, my cuz went anyway, and it was a great night. It pissed me off that she wouldn't let him have his own bachelor party, and was too much of a baby to suck it up and come to the celebration that SHE wanted. There was nothing she could do about the house, and the neighbors prevented the break-in and were keeping an eye on the house. We all came to Mexico (time and expense) to be with you to celebrate. This premise that men and women have to share EVERYTHING is ridiculous. As men we need to stamp this shit out.

Post: #13

In all honesty, I don't care for bachelor parties. I think they're inane* and quite pointless, as if your unmarried life were some kind of great fun that you're leaving behind and your married life a tragedy that you're entering. If there is such a difference between the two that you need to mourn the previous period, I don't see why you should get married at all.

Of course, that means she isn't getting a bachelorette party on my watch either.

* = take my opinion with a grain of salt, as I'm an introvert and don't enjoy large (particularly drunk) parties in general

Post: #14

Don't see the problem. They want to make money, adding a female character will probably make them more money.