Post: #51

Sonsoway's write-up of the film.....


   


I was pissed when in 300 Rise of an Empire saw the female actress lead an army of Spartans into the Persians and cutting them down. Are you fucking kidding me?

Post: #52

AB's post brought up something I keep seeing these days: SWPL Millennials see a new movie / TV adaptation of their childhood favourites coming out and immediately exclaim "I hope it's dark and gritty". What a joyless bunch.

Post: #53

There's a competing opinion on /r/theredpill that's pretty compelling.

Anyway, don't mistake the mainstream media's outrage at the RoK article as being anything other than blatant opportunism. It's an article campaign to drive clickbait with a clear villain (RoK/MRAs) and a media-friendly narrative (herp derp feminism). One media typist came across one guy's opinion and everyone else had to get in front of the story.

Post: #54

(05-16-2015 07:42 AM)aphelion Wrote:  There's a competing opinion on /r/theredpill that's pretty compelling.

Anyway, don't mistake the mainstream media's outrage at the RoK article as being anything other than blatant opportunism. It's an article campaign to drive clickbait with a clear villain (RoK/MRAs) and a media-friendly narrative (herp derp feminism). One media typist came across one guy's opinion and everyone else had to get in front of the story.

This?
http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comme...y_road_is/

I submitted a post for ROK last night that is in a somewhat similar vein. I argue that the movie displays patriarchy in a positive manner, although not explicitly. The gist is that the bad guy's area (patriarchy) is the only place which has made any sort of progress. Even though life is shitty there, in the context of the apocalyptic world, it isn't so bad in relative terms. Meanwhile the matriarchal bikers have failed to maintain their Green Place, hence the attempt to co-opt the patriarchal efficiency as their own. Even though they are successful, logic suggests they aren't capable of maintaining it.

There's a bit more, but like that Reddit post said about Gone Girl, the feminist talking points are very surface level, and don't really make that much sense when you actually think about it a bit more.

Post: #55

I have said this before and i'll say it again.

Roosh should startup an ROK version of Hollywood Reporter or Variety. There is so much hollywood hypocrisy, from SJW crazies to tax incentives to rouge film financing, that the opportunities for such articles are endless.

Post: #56

(05-16-2015 10:28 AM)Dismal Operator Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 07:42 AM)aphelion Wrote:  There's a competing opinion on /r/theredpill that's pretty compelling.

Anyway, don't mistake the mainstream media's outrage at the RoK article as being anything other than blatant opportunism. It's an article campaign to drive clickbait with a clear villain (RoK/MRAs) and a media-friendly narrative (herp derp feminism). One media typist came across one guy's opinion and everyone else had to get in front of the story.

This?
http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comme...y_road_is/

I submitted a post for ROK last night that is in a somewhat similar vein. I argue that the movie displays patriarchy in a positive manner, although not explicitly. The gist is that the bad guy's area (patriarchy) is the only place which has made any sort of progress. Even though life is shitty there, in the context of the apocalyptic world, it isn't so bad in relative terms. Meanwhile the matriarchal bikers have failed to maintain their Green Place, hence the attempt to co-opt the patriarchal efficiency as their own. Even though they are successful, logic suggests they aren't capable of maintaining it.

There's a bit more, but like that Reddit post said about Gone Girl, the feminist talking points are very surface level, and don't really make that much sense when you actually think about it a bit more.

That is just one person's interpretation.

It is still a movie trying to push bullshit agendas.

Post: #57

(05-16-2015 10:28 AM)Dismal Operator Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 07:42 AM)aphelion Wrote:  There's a competing opinion on /r/theredpill that's pretty compelling.

Anyway, don't mistake the mainstream media's outrage at the RoK article as being anything other than blatant opportunism. It's an article campaign to drive clickbait with a clear villain (RoK/MRAs) and a media-friendly narrative (herp derp feminism). One media typist came across one guy's opinion and everyone else had to get in front of the story.

This?
http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comme...y_road_is/

I submitted a post for ROK last night that is in a somewhat similar vein. I argue that the movie displays patriarchy in a positive manner, although not explicitly. The gist is that the bad guy's area (patriarchy) is the only place which has made any sort of progress. Even though life is shitty there, in the context of the apocalyptic world, it isn't so bad in relative terms. Meanwhile the matriarchal bikers have failed to maintain their Green Place, hence the attempt to co-opt the patriarchal efficiency as their own. Even though they are successful, logic suggests they aren't capable of maintaining it.

There's a bit more, but like that Reddit post said about Gone Girl, the feminist talking points are very surface level, and don't really make that much sense when you actually think about it a bit more.

Some people - even the ones around here do not understand how propaganda works. It does NOT IMPROVE the narrative if the woman loses one fight or sometimes is being portrayed as stupid or slutty (Parks and Recreation, Amy Schumer TV series and new movie). The entire message of the movie is decisive.

Men = bad
Women = good, superior despite being physically a bit inferior, women begin to fight back, not dissatisfied men among the lower ranks as would be the case

Who is in normal circumstances the biggest threat to a psychopathic regime? Another psychopath or a strong intelligent charismatic positive man who rises against the negative ruler - those are the men rulers are keeping an eye on. They completely ignore women, because a Furiosa is a myth.

There are so many problems with the narrative that I cannot even begin to address it. After I see the movie I will say more.

Frankly I am amazed that the movie is being defended by anyone with a Red Pill perception. It is for sure propaganda and it matters nothing if fights are shown more realistically.

Post: #58

(05-16-2015 03:25 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  One more little 'Anti-Life / Anti Humanity' observation:

Hollywood doesn't even understand male sexuality:

- They pair 37 year old Hardy, not with an early 20-something beauty a man of his physicality and social status could get, but a woman two years older than him.

- They take this woman and shave off all her hair - a signifier of health and a sexual attractor for men.

- Then repeatedly masculinise her behaviour so all the men in the audience realise she is their equal, and not feminine and submissive, two more sexual attractors for straight men.

Then base the marketing around the belief that this walking male corpse is sexually-attractive to men.

AB your post made me remember an excellent article posted long back at http://theredpillroom.blogspot.com that may explain the above, some reactions in the thread as well as the twitter reactions Roosh linked.
Quoting parts of this article

Quote:Male social dynamics have two major parts: the first in which men are tested for their fitness for membership, and the second in which having passed the test they are accepted into the group almost wholesale. (female social dynamics are characterized by) immediate superficial acceptance, followed by an undercurrent of obfuscated and passive-aggressive challenges from the inside

Quote:Similarly, one woman in an all-male group radically alters the dynamic. Some women who seem determined to be included as "one of the guys" find it highly frustrating when despite their best efforts they just don't make the cut. I knew one in college who was determined to be accepted as "one of the guys" in Tech Crew for a play, and she did everything she could to de-feminize herself (she was straight, and I think she was after one of the other dudes, but I digress . . .) in that pursuit.

Quote:A single woman attempting to infiltrate the Sandbox will sometimes understand the situation well enough to demand a male-style challenge herself. Depending upon the males in question, they may or may not humor her. And if she does succeed in the challenge, she will get a little grudging respect, and she will be "included" in the next "all-guys" night. But "being included" often means "being ignored", just like you'd mostly ignore a low-status Gamma or Delta. A woman's successful challenge to gain entry to the Sandbox usually means that she's low-status to no-status...but the dynamic in the Sandbox shifts anyway, because she's still a chick, they're still dudes, and even if she watches porn and plays videogames she's still a chick and they're still dudes.

Quote:MEN usually gain their self-esteem through achievement ("how good am I?") while WOMEN traditionally gain their self-esteem through affiliation ("how popular am I?") <snip> I think we men understand this at a basic level. When a girl tries to do something that usually only boys do, the natural hesitancy on the part of men isn't -- as many women, particularly feminists, contend -- because they don't want their social group to be exclusive. That's a chick thing. Men resent women who intrude into the Sandbox because they're usually doing it as a matter of social positioning, not because they have the same drive toward achievement that men do. And then there's this other thing: the tendency of those first "female pioneers" in the Sandbox to attempt to re-write the social rules after they were grudgingly included. In most Sandboxes that means dialing down the achievement bar to make the initiatory challenge easier . . . for other girls. That's because they're playing by Swingset rules, which mandate that everyone strive for consensus and equality, and not by Sandbox rules that mandate that everyone be judged by their individual achievements and their individual contributions to the group.

Quote:A single woman alters the group dynamic of a previously all-male Sandbox. TWO women destroy it utterly.
Why? Because it only takes two women to form a node of the Female Social Matrix. While that sounds like a VERY GOOD THING to those allergic to honest competition(lol), the fact is that de-emphasizing achievement in favor of simple affiliation is disaster for how the Sandbox works.

Two intractable figures within the group who always agree with each other and almost always suggest alternatives to leadership's dictates (because offering "helpful suggestions" to the group leadership is prized on the Swingset, but despised in the Sandbox) become a serious problem -- especially when they start using their micro-consensus as a point of leverage to change the direction of the group.......the focus isn't being the Alpha Female and leading -- no one really wants that, because of the danger it attracts -- it's to be able to influence the consensus of the group while avoiding personal risks to position, without appearing to.



So when there is a two-girl FSM(female social matrix) node in the middle of the Sandbox stubbornly insisting that the group listen to their direction and suggestions, not those of the designated-and-vetted AMOG, then it's rightly seen as a challenge to their loyalty to the group, their willingness to submit to group leadership in exchange for their respect, and their willingness to put aside their personal issues and sense of independence in order to further the goals of the group. And that's how the group dynamic of the Sandbox gets screwed up. Because with two women, it isn't an all-male Sandbox anymore, it's a piece of the Swingset that has gotten out of control

Quote:That's also why men, when confronted with the invasion of all-male space by women, often retreat and re-form their group instead of trying to contend with "equalizing" the Sandbox. They want a group dynamic where achievement, not consensus and affiliation, are important. They want to get the bridge built, not have fun -- building the bridge IS the fun. Socializing along the way is often a pointless indulgence of lower-status Betas and Gammas, so making things "easier and more fun" (more feminine) is anathema to the all-male power structure. It's not that men "fear" women invading their spaces because they want to keep them exclusive just for the sake of exclusivity -- that's a female thing -- they want to keep them exclusive because including women into the group dynamic often, if not always, deters the group from its stated mission. You just can't build a sandcastle at the Swingset, you have to do it at the Sandbox...so if you want a sandcastle, you need to follow the Sandbox rules.

A few notes -

- The Sandbox and Swingset terms are analogies used to explain male and female social matrices and their interactions with each other.

- One would theorize that Hollywood operates under similar (multiple) two-girl female social matrix nodes

-A single woman attempting to infiltrate the Sandbox will sometimes understand the situation well enough to demand a male-style challenge herself.
--- this alludes to your statement about Theron's ugly masculinization.

- "Depending upon the males in question, they may or may not humor her."
"Socializing along the way is often a pointless indulgence of lower-status Betas and Gammas" and
"A woman's successful challenge to gain entry to the Sandbox usually means that she's low-status to no-status"

-- Explaining somewhat the reaction of betas who're championing the strong empowered woman agenda in the twitter feed and outside and the ridicule of forum members here. Relevant to the current popularity of female Thor, female Iron Man, female Hulk etc.
Also the whole article may explain why the original MadMax and similar movies are so popular among a specific male demographic.


- And then there's this other thing: the tendency of those first "female pioneers" in the Sandbox to attempt to re-write the social rules after they were grudgingly included.

coupled with the fact that any normal dude would find this new MadMax movie lame -- To perhaps address this comment of yours -- " Then base the marketing around the belief that this walking male corpse is sexually-attractive to men"

- Penis Envy (sorry, couldn't resist).

Post: #59

Both AB and Lizard expertly outlined something I've felt about movies for some time.

It took me a while to realize it and I couldn't understand why, until I started watching older movies that I grew up with.





Here's the key difference:

Movies were fun

There are plenty of movies I've enjoyed over the past 15 years. Birdman, Inside Llewin Davis, Nebraska, All is Lost, Django Unchained, Drive, Captain Phillips, Inception, Burn After Reading, No Country For Old Men, etc. All fine movies, some better than others obviously. I would call Tarantino movies fun, but in a gratuitously violent manner. Tarantino is like the graphic novels I would pick up as a teenager.

No Country For Old Men is a particularly poignant example related to this topic, in which the film's often-absent protagonist (Tommy Lee Jones) laments about the new violence that has emerged, and clearly symbolizes a generation of America in the West that is long gone.

Every year there's usually one or two movies that I want to see. Sometimes I enjoy them, usually not. Movies like Inception and Interstellar are conceptually interesting but reliably fall back on Hollywood cliches. Many movies show promise but will inevitably illicit some face-palm-worthy reaction as the movie makers just can't help themselves but shoot for the lowest common denominator.

And for every movie that shows promise, there are 10 that are absolute garbage. Yet more remakes, more CGI-reliant action flicks, more comic book remakes, more sappy romances and feel-good comedies (want a Prozac to go with that?)

And a note on CGI and visual effects, Lizard made a very good observation here: it all looks the same.

Watch this scene:





Look at how compelling this scene is, set in a richly textured world. The characters, their representations, the music, the visual effects, all work together to transport us to another world that is immersive.

For shits and giggles, let's look at another tornado scene, care of Hollywood, almost 60 years later.





Good god, where do I begin with this travesty? It speaks for itself. From the annoying characters, to the overly demonic and antagonistic portrayal of the tornado itself (the use of animal sounds for the audio effects) this movie is a perfect example of a Hollywood failure.

A common problem I have with Hollywood movies is the introduction of excessive drama, in this case trite relations between man and woman, when the storyline does not call for it whatsoever. An incredible event; the chasing of tornadoes, is spectacular enough without the introduction of some bullshit back-and-forth bickering drama between men and women, and only serves to paint the female character as some henpecking, emasculating cunt. The same could be said for Gravity; in that movie we're told about Bullock's character losing a child. This is completely gratuitous and irrelevant. Her struggle in space is dramatic enough, easily worthy of a space drama, and yet the moviemakers still felt the need to introduce the banal and tired plot element of a parent losing a child.

Regarding space, look at how wonderful this scene is:




A triumph of mankind, in his ability to conquer and inhabit space, a hopeful vision of the future, set to an elegant waltz created in the 19th century. A harmony of past and future, celebrating humanity.

Compared to this:




The contrast is jarring, and ugly.

Post: #60

Regarding CGI, it started out on a high note:









But over years turned into a crutch for action/adventure films reaching its apex in the LOTR movies, which I personally can't stand. I think they're shitty films which is a damn shame as I was a huge Tolkien fan. The LOTR movies are like coke; the first hit is awesome but then it feels like something's missing, so you go back and take another and another hit, and then after an hour of this shit you feel completely empty and a little depressed. Where is the substance? Using the CGI as a crutch is evident in the number of sloppy mistakes the movies exhibit:

Post: #61

(05-16-2015 03:25 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  - They take this woman and shave off all her hair - a signifier of health and a sexual attractor for men.

- Then repeatedly masculinise her behaviour so all the men in the audience realise she is their equal, and not feminine and submissive, two more sexual attractors for straight men.

Think about how Hollywoods (film and television) has had a habit of masculinizing female leads for a couple of years.

I can recall at least 10 recent movies where the female character has short, boyish hair.

I cant name 10 recent movies where the female lead is feminine and nurturing to both male and female characters.

They want you to accept the notion that men are not to get any comfort or pleasure from women.

Post: #62

The idea of strong, empowered heroines is nothing new. It's as old as many ancient mythologies.

In more recent times, it's been replaced by the femme fatale, the idea of women doing dirty work just like the guys, while maintain strong sex appeal. I'm all for it. I can't think of a film that captured this better than Sin City:













What Hollywood is trying to do is remove women from sex. Or remove sex from women.

What they fail to realize is that the two are inextricably linked. A woman is empowered by her sexuality. A genuinely feminine woman has real power over men. This law is as true as the motion of the planets.

Feminist harpies created a myth that a woman with sexual power is somehow inferior, a "bimbo", and only the target of base objectification. Because feminists are ugly, and have no power of their own, they sought to bring down women who do have the power, and in their place they would create a monster with no sexuality of her own, a beast that possesses a vagina and breasts but no other identifiable gender parts. A shaved head with blackened skin and a disfigured, amputated body. This aberration of humanity would be held up as a standard for young women to look up to. Gone is the feminine ideal that has been exalted for thousands of years, and here today we have the paragon of new "femininity":

Post: #63

I'm not a fan of cracked's humor but this article is right along the lines of why current CGI doesn't quite do it.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-ex...l-effects/

I always have a soft spot for practical effects. Why CGI worked in the beginning is that it was use in tandem with practicals. CGI didn't look good up close in general at the time, however it allowed for wide shots for the creatures to do things no animatronics would allow. The closest thing to it for a long time was stop motion animation which is rarely used anymore. That style of animation is extremely tedious and is very unforgiving.

Post: #64

There are two notorious Aint it cool talk back guys that I am friends with on Twitter were completely hyper for this movie, as they were big fan of the previous films.

Seeing their disgust over the film makes me smile as it isn't just the Red pill perspective who thinks the film is shit.

It's rabid fans of films and genre pieces as well.

Post: #65

The title of this flick should have been "Mad Maxi and Her Pads".

Post: #66

(05-16-2015 07:42 AM)aphelion Wrote:  There's a competing opinion on /r/theredpill that's pretty compelling.

Why would you take that essay at face value? A random writer on the subreddit, who mightn't even be able to detect subtext, versus the statements of both the Writer and Main Actress in the film saying "Yes, this is a feminist movie", and both of them talking about knowing they have to "sneak it in".

This is why Banshee - a male-orientated show - has a Cross-Dressing Flaming Gay Friend of the hero. You think that's by accident? It's design. Normalise and force acceptance.

Ellen Pao has been quite clear about cleaning up ThoughtCrime from the site, and her team has made mission statements about this.

As such, there's been a rising trend of Anti-Red Pill Truths being the highest-upvoted comment in each thread.

Rather than outright censorship - at least at this stage - I assume they're going for subtle Psy Ops. SJW's always infiltrate and destroy from within.

Post: #67

Article was discussed on The Young Turks channel





Gay voice, feminine snark, etc etc

Post: #68

^^^

Christ, what a knob.

This, coming from guy wearing a plaid shirt with a gray jacket. Dooorrrk.

I'll have more to say about Hollywood, social engineering, and Charlize Theron's REAL apocalypse movie (the one where she shows us what American women are really like).

Tune in Monday at ROK....

Post: #69

By the way, it's not an isolated snipe. I'm seeing articles pop up all over my facebook feed to the effect that MRA's are losers, nutjobs, and want to be able to beat and rape women. The word seems to have gone out that MRA's are to be shoehorned in as the next "Heels" in the media ring.


Typical tactic. Go after the most low hanging fruit in and then paint them as representative of anyone who disagrees with the agenda. Same thing they did with "tinfoil hatters" and "teabaggers".

Post: #70

I was reading a story about foreign policy yesterday and saw some link to another article about ROK's Mad Max take. The headline was basically what you all would expect - that MRA's were whining about Mad Max. This theme has been pushed far and wide, despite the fact that it is easily refutable by a simple click to ROK - it is not an "MRA" site.

How then did this still continue? It's because these people are fucking liars. They lie to their very cores to continue to push their social narrative. Maybe different outlets have slightly different takes, but like George Carlin said a long time ago, "it's just a reed in the wind."

But people are wising up and like Quintus said, they're not gonna stop us. We're gonna continue to get our message out and we're going to continue to grow. Their struggling to push the narrative is only going to increase the resentment that the mainstream blue pill guys and drive them right into our camp.

Post: #71

(05-16-2015 12:55 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Frankly I am amazed that the movie is being defended by anyone with a Red Pill perception. It is for sure propaganda and it matters nothing if fights are shown more realistically.

If you're talking about that site on the red pill reddit, then those are 100% shills. Usually most posts on that subreddit front page don't get nearly as many votes put to it, yet every single post in that thread is upvoted to hell, like 20 or 30 times more than I've ever seen. It's easier to manipulate opinion on Reddit, which is why It's really useless as a space to actually have discourse, There are so many shills on that whole site, there really is no point in reading 99% of what's there. This is why heavily moderated forums (RvF) are a lot better to have discussion. the shilling is cut down a lot and people can actually discuss with one another, instead of being preached at /manipulated.



EDIT: I JUST SAW THIS POST: (Glad someone else has noticed this as well)

(05-16-2015 04:42 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 07:42 AM)aphelion Wrote:  There's a competing opinion on /r/theredpill that's pretty compelling.

Why would you take that essay at face value? A random writer on the subreddit, who mightn't even be able to detect subtext, versus the statements of both the Writer and Main Actress in the film saying "Yes, this is a feminist movie", and both of them talking about knowing they have to "sneak it in".

This is why Banshee - a male-orientated show - has a Cross-Dressing Flaming Gay Friend of the hero. You think that's by accident? It's design. Normalise and force acceptance.

Ellen Pao has been quite clear about cleaning up ThoughtCrime from the site, and her team has made mission statements about this.

As such, there's been a rising trend of Anti-Red Pill Truths being the highest-upvoted comment in each thread.

Rather than outright censorship - at least at this stage - I assume they're going for subtle Psy Ops. SJW's always infiltrate and destroy from within.

It's not just in the Red pill thread/sub, it's pretty much all over the default subs on Reddit, hell the default subs in reddit are chosen based on the most feminist bent anyway (i.e. the fact that twoXChormosomes is a default sub)

Reddit is NOT filled with your friends, Reddit is the enemy. Full of betas who refuse to unplug until its too late.


A quote from what Sharkie wrote is a good one:
That's also why men, when confronted with the invasion of all-male space by women, often retreat and re-form their group instead of trying to contend with "equalizing" the Sandbox. They want a group dynamic where achievement, not consensus and affiliation, are important. They want to get the bridge built, not have fun -- building the bridge IS the fun.

Pretty much "Where have all the good men gone" this and the rest of the original material explains a lot of things I Haven't even thought about but will use in the future.

Post: #72

(05-16-2015 06:16 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Article was discussed on The Young Turks channel

Where to begin with that?

No analysis whatsoever. Just a completely exaggerated and manufactured outrage in his voice as he sarcastically re-reads Captain Capitalism's article.

The crux of his "argument" seems to be that he doesn't have one or need one. Indeed as I pointed out in my earlier post, the sjw crowd sees no reason to refute any points made in the article with facts or logic, because the sjw belief system is axiomatic and proof of itself. Instead he brings on the ad hominem attacks: "ridiculous", "making mras look bad" etc. "Those who disagree with the narrative shall be mocked."

He even stumbles on one valid criticism of Clarey's arguments - that he hadn't seen the movie before condemning it - but utterly fails to exploit it by admitting he too hasn't seen it but it is somehow entitled to a defence sight unseen. Sophistry and hypocrisy both.

The sjw's so feverently believe in what they've been socially preconditioned and indoctrinated to believe that they don't even try to defend it. I actually don't think they could defend it logically if they tried. It's taken on an almost religious aspect.

Even more saddening is that this is generally the quality of content coming out of the Young Turks site. "Facts are no match for our feelings or the narrative.". Journalism fucking fail.

Post: #73

Andrew Klavan at PJ Media did a small writeup about Mad Max

Quote:Mad Max: Fury Road is not a good movie and the ecstasy with which the critics received it was dishonest. Tastes differ, of course, but I think in this case the critics are just lying for political reasons.


“It’s enough to renew your faith in the movies,” said Ty Burr of the Boston Globe. Peter Travers at Rolling Stone urged us to overlook the fact the picture doesn’t make sense and “Just go with it.” He praised director George Miller (who also directed the terrific original Mad Max and its sequel) as an “indisputable visionary genius.” A.O. Scott of the New York Times said this: “It’s all great fun, and quite rousing as well — a large-scale genre movie that is at once unpretentious and unafraid to bring home a message…. It’s about revolution.”

I believe they said these untrue things because this not-very-good movie is feminist.

Now, I’m not a feminist. I’m an individualist who believes each person should do what he or she wants to do and is able to do without fear or favor. I believe that, in such a free world, more men will choose to do manly things and more women womanly things but that strikes me as a feature not a bug, since gender differences seem to me among the great beauties of life. Identity politics, on the other hand, is a misery imposed on us by the powerful in order to divide us so they can consolidate their power.

But while I consider feminism a dishonest and oppressive philosophy, I believe good feminist stories can be told. This is because even a philosophy that is a lie in general may be the truth in a specific, individual case and stories are individual and specific. Dishonest outlooks can produce honest stories. The left has been living off this fact for decades.

So while ideologically corrupt critics are going wild over Fury Road because it’s feminist, I’m not criticizing it because I’m anti-feminist. I’m criticizing it because it’s not very good. Its title character is ill-defined. His mission is emotionally muddy. The non-stop car chase action becomes tiresome about 45 minutes in (though I did find myself wondering wistfully if there was a video game to go with it!). The finale is unbelievable even in context. The color palette, I admit, is beautiful but if you’re watching an enormous action sequence and thinking about the color palette… well, you get the idea.

What Fury Road does have is a female warrior (played by the always-watchable Charlize Theron) who does the work that any good story would have reserved for its central character. She has a back story that matters. She performs the major action tasks. She travels over a personal arc within the plot. Some in Hollywood fear that female action leads bomb. So Fury Road sneaks the female lead in by giving the female sidekick all the good stuff to do. As a result, however, the center of the movie is empty and the story collapses into it.


As readers of this blog know, I hate giving bad reviews. Writing good books and making good movies are very hard things to accomplish and I’d much rather praise the best and let the worst pass by in silence. My point is not to pick on the film, but simply to make myself blue in the face reminding conservatives who complain about the leftist monopoly on the arts that it didn’t happen by accident and it won’t go away by itself. It is kept in place by gray-lists and lies and it needs to be overturned by talented artistic effort, fresh and honest critical voices, smart capitalist investment, grants and awards.

As long as you conservatives stay on the sidelines, the left will win the culture and the culture wars. As long as you refuse to build a critical and award-giving infrastructure to celebrate great liberty-loving works, as long as you praise only G-rated films while watching the R-rated ones in secret, as long as you dismiss freedom-supporting art because it’s naughty or contains violence and sex or four-letter words or sympathetic gay characters or whatever makes you wrinkle your righteous little nose — as long as you do those things, the left will continue to use the culture to eat away the free earth beneath your feet.

The results are already plain to see. Only a nation in which the left had monopolized the arts for 50 years could have elected a mean-spirited little anti-American incompetent like Barack Obama to the presidency while honestly believing him a messiah bringing Hope and Change. Only a nation that has been taught to believe what Shelby Steele calls “poetic truth” over actual truth could make that stupid a mistake. We learned to believe the Obama mythology at the movies.

But of course, reality does have its revenge from time to time. For all the critics’ furious attempts to make Fury Road a smash, it was trumped at the box office by — wait for it — Pitch Perfect 2, the sequel to a cute little musical about a college girls a cappella singing group. Women showed up in droves for the picture because they preferred a song-fest to slam-bang action.

Because they’re women. Which is a good thing.

http://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2015/05/...epage=true

Post: #74

REDOX Journal had a good take on it and referred to the ROK article:

Quote:HASHTAG BADASS

“Badass” women are going to bathe in your male tears you misogynist neckbeards. We’re not letting you have your video games, your comic books, your football, or your action movies. We’re even going to make Mad Max a feminist.

But don’t, you know, complain about it, or we might get triggered.

That high pitched whine you hear in the distance is the coordinated promotional campaign revving up for Mad Max: Fury Road. Ostensibly, it’s the latest adventure of the post-apocalyptic hero once portrayed by the greatest Aryan terrorist this side of Ben Garrison, noted Catholic philosopher Mel Gibson. But rather than Mad Max ruling the wasteland in his new portrayal by Bane (Tom Hardy), apparently he’s going to mope about following a short-haired “badass” woman portrayed by Charlize Theron. The film’s director even called in professional parasite and rape fantasist Eve Ensler to teach the various actresses about how to be “empowered.”

As the quickest way to profit in modern America is to manipulate social dynamics, this marketing strategy achieved the desired results. Men complained about what a stupid idea this was, journalists had a triumphant squee about their new feminist masterpiece, and the producers are chuckling about the buzz they’ve created before most people have even gone to see the movie.

As I haven’t seen it, it’s obviously absurd to review the film itself. Yet it’s impossible not to notice the monolithic description of the female characters as “badass.” An anti-masculinity blogger named David Futelle claps his hands together about female “postapocolyptical badasses” sticking it to the misogynists. Buzzfeed shrilly insists the film is about a “badass woman.” Indiewire lectures us about Charlize Theron as the new “badass” in a line of “badass” female action stars. And so on, dozens of articles reciting the same script, as surely as if it came from the same press release. The message is clear—Charlize Theron is a hashtag badass.

http://www.radixjournal.com/journal/2015...tag-badass

Quote:But what about the female “badasses” of stage and screen, who merrily butcher their way to the credits and don’t need no man? Theron’s Imperator Furiosa (groan) from Mad Max can apparently stand her ground in a world of unrestrained men who have no limits placed upon their most degraded impulses. But like the existence of transsexuals or otherkin, this is simply a pitiable exercise in wish fulfillment.

That's what we are missing too.

Feminism and female empowerment would be gone the second an apocalypse strikes.

Without social restraint raw male power would instantly make all women cowered afraid creatures. The last thing on Earth would be that the emperor's harem members care about First world problems of "not being a thing". Feminist thinking would have long left the world.

It was even observable after 9-11 and months and years afterwards when they dialed back massively on misandry - seen clearly in a shift of TV commercials and media reports. And that was a tiny event in comparison to a Mad Max style apocalypse. Even red-haired shrieking SJW otherkin would either be triggered into suicide or grow out their hair and try to find a strong men for protection.

It is interesting to note from the article Vinman posted that one of the reasons critics and newspapers had to be ecstatic about the movie was feminism - they simply could not oppose female empowerment. It is the same Newthink that lets Britain's Got Talent judges clap like trained monkey whenever they see fat old grannies do a strip-show number. They simply cannot afford to tell them the truth: "No one wants to see your sagging tits and disgusting naked bodies!" They must do a standing ovation and pretend that grandmothers emulating slutty women in their prime is sexy and empowering:




You are a misogynist for not loving this.

The current elite mostly lives a double life of praising the SJW-virtues while being Red Pill when the cameras are done filming:

Post: #75

(05-18-2015 07:09 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  
You are a misogynist for not loving this.