Decrescent Daytripper wrote:

SaigonAlice wrote:

Word of advice, don't refer to Transgender people as "Transvestites" or "Transexuals." Those are generally considered as very harmful slurs.

I'm going to take some time for this, because I think it needs addressing.

Ed Wood was a transvestite. He was a man who felt most comfortable in what are traditionally considered women's clothing. His first major production was a pseudo-documentary on transvestism and on mtf transitioning of transsexuals.

As someone who is intersex who wears a lot of "women's" clothes, and has many close acquaintances who are transsexual or transvestites, I'm not going to let anyone take the blanket term, transgender, solely for their own. Period.

Transgender is an umbrella term, under which the categories intersex, transsexual, and transvestite fall. Should they be grouped together? Maybe, maybe not. Clinically, they are increasingly being distanced, and that makes sense. Sociologically... who knows. However, transsexuals, being people whose gender does not conform to societal expectations of their sexual characteristics, do not have sole claim to transgender, nor can they erase other transgender categories for their own gain.

So, when I'm discussing a transvestite filmmaker and novelist, whose work often dealt openly with transvestites and transsexuals, I'm going to do him the respect of referring to those as they are and not erase his identity or existence, and the existence and identities of his subjects.

I concede and apologise. I don't consider myself cisgender but I'm not transgender nor am I transexual or transvestite, so it'd be gauche of me to assume anything of the topic.

Just wanting to make the point that on IRG people often admit when they're being defensive, presenting their argument with that taken for granted so people know it's there, but that it also is a cue to consider the information. And people apologize??? It's awesome. I'm not quite wording it right, but I feel like there's a lot of productive checking your ego at the door, and I feel like I get so much more out of the conversations I read here. So like, yay, IRG. Or something.

I love that they're going to out him, but it's really not a huge stretch from the original. That guy was 100% gay nonstop regardless of whether he was closeted or not, so they're really just taking their own work to its logical conclusion. I'm guessing everyone's mad because of how...well...gay this all looks. Maybe people were hoping for some big surprise like OMG the teapot is married to a woman and Chip was born with donor sperm supplied by Cogsworth!!!11

When Sulu was outed as gay in the last Trek movie, people that approved did so by pointing out that making a whole new character just for the coincidence of them being gay would be ridiculous. I agree with that, and had they made some other character as new content to make gay in their movie, people would have been angry about that.

It's going to be like Star Trek Beyond was last year with Sulu being gay in that the media will literally shit themselves over something that will flash and be missed easily and isn't even remotely a big deal in the movie. Which is pretty telling to what our attitudes are.

Desperate and clinging to antique social mores.

They really made a big deal of the gay Sulu thing. Takei commented on not liking it, and it sparked this huge debate in the community before it ever got released. And when it did? A subtle, clean reference the script and the film draws absolutely no special attention to. Star Trek trolled the people who thought a gay character was even remotely a big deal. It felt very like the spirit of Star Trek, in that it criticizes our stupid modern misguided beliefs by ignoring them. Uhura was black, which was a big deal to the people watching...but the show didn't care.

Disney is a little less progressive this way, and I get that. It deals with a young crowd and undeniably defines the speed of progress culturally in a way that just straight eclipses even something like Trek. But the last several large Disney backed projects have had prominent, independently powerful women, and that's great! Princesses without needing princes to save them, all that good shit. Gay people need to happen and I hope in the movie it's treated the way it is in Trek. Like...no one cares. That said...the time period setting and all stretch the believability of that...so I really don't know where they're going to go with this.

Zerokohai wrote:

Ladies and gents, I need your help. I have to write an essay in which I compare a film and its remake. Trouble is, I hardly ever watch full length films, so I have no idea what would be a good choice. Any suggestions would be appreciated, though please don't tell me too much about the film (it's my essay after all, I've got to write it).

Just do on the  Disney live action remake movies they're making, pretty fun to nitpick the differences. The mist fun one us snow white and its remakes.

Last edited by itavin (03-17-2017 05:05:12 PM)

Zerokohai wrote:

Ladies and gents, I need your help. I have to write an essay in which I compare a film and its remake. Trouble is, I hardly ever watch full length films, so I have no idea what would be a good choice. Any suggestions would be appreciated, though please don't tell me too much about the film (it's my essay after all, I've got to write it).

If you want to watch a remake that was made as experiment to see why that particular film shouldn't be remade, I'd suggest Psycho, both the original Hitchcock version and the 1998 Gus Van Sant version. It's technically a shot-by-shot remake, so if you're interested in that, you could check them out. Also, there could be value in comparing both versions of The Blob. The 1958 version's said to be the first successful independent film, and the 1988 remake does seem evocative of 80s horror in general, from what I understand. And if you need an excuse to watch both versions of Little Shop of Horrors, take it and run.

If you don't want to go towards horror, there's Scarface (1932 and 1983), 101 Dalmatians, both the 1961 animated film and the 1996 live action remake, and Flubber (1997) and The Absent-Minded Professor (1961). And this one might be a bit much, but there has been three versions of a Fantastic Four movie that have all had various levels of mediocre to negative receptions.

Also, apparently Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor is a remake of Tora! Tora! Tora!. I honestly didn't know that.

EDIT: The Wicker Man (1973). The Wicker Man (2006). Wicker Men.

Last edited by zeedikay (03-17-2017 07:35:52 PM)

Zerokohai wrote:

Ladies and gents, I need your help. I have to write an essay in which I compare a film and its remake. Trouble is, I hardly ever watch full length films, so I have no idea what would be a good choice. Any suggestions would be appreciated, though please don't tell me too much about the film (it's my essay after all, I've got to write it).

Infernal Affairs and The Departed are action/crime type movies that could be a possibility. Kind of obscure but it was the first think I thought of.

gpink wrote:

Zerokohai wrote:

Ladies and gents, I need your help. I have to write an essay in which I compare a film and its remake. Trouble is, I hardly ever watch full length films, so I have no idea what would be a good choice. Any suggestions would be appreciated, though please don't tell me too much about the film (it's my essay after all, I've got to write it).

Infernal Affairs and The Departed are action/crime type movies that could be a possibility. Kind of obscure but it was the first think I thought of.

Dawn of the Dead.  Zombie movies are alllllllll abouts the zombies as a analogies for consumerism, and how society views that consumerism and thus frames and designs its mall zombo film to reflect that in 1978 versus 2004 might make for interesting discussion. 


Same with any kind of monster movie.  Remakes will tend to change bits and pieces so that the new boogeyman is in line with with what we fear as a society.

Zerokohai wrote:

Ladies and gents, I need your help. I have to write an essay in which I compare a film and its remake. Trouble is, I hardly ever watch full length films, so I have no idea what would be a good choice. Any suggestions would be appreciated, though please don't tell me too much about the film (it's my essay after all, I've got to write it).

I'm so late to this party, but The Thomas Crown Affair is a fun double feature. Let the Right One In, too.

Speaking of remakes...well. Beauty and the Beast? Anyone?

The sets and such were drop dead gorgeous, and they fixed a lot of flaws in the original...but then they broke a lot of things too, and I never really bought the Beast--his facial CG was top notch but the body movements just never came together. Apparently Dan Stevens did a stilts thing to perform, which is admirable, but it looked a lot like they never got a handle on how he walked, and his hair/clothing felt lifeless. Which is a shame because some of the things I totally loved, like the Definitely Not Versailles look they gave everything, and the absurd notion that he wouldn't be able to read.

Strangely, they toned Gaston way, way down, and I don't mean in the whole 'removed key elements of his song' kind of way, but in the rapey-pants sexist way. He's still arrogant as holy hell, but he just doesn't carry the same sexual menace he had before.

But they had Adam growl adorably at the end so I'm guessing most women my age who are totally not furries except for Disney are happy??? And despite my being able to critique it for a week straight, I don't hate it? Is this what clinging to nostalgia feels like?

Zerokohai wrote:

Ladies and gents, I need your help. I have to write an essay in which I compare a film and its remake. Trouble is, I hardly ever watch full length films, so I have no idea what would be a good choice. Any suggestions would be appreciated, though please don't tell me too much about the film (it's my essay after all, I've got to write it).

Ringu (original) vs. The Ring (remake)

There is a wealth of things you can focus on here. I was startled by how different the two films are and yet how similar they are.

Alright, for the first time in years, I rewatched Beauty and the Beast (the original, I have no interest in the live action version). It was the first film I remember watching and the first DVD I ever owned (back in 2002!), and I was awash with emotion and nostalgia the whole time. Trouble is, since it was such a big part of my childhood, I find it near-impossible to look at it objectively and critically. Even now, I loved every moment of it, and I'm not even a particularly big Disney fan. I found its pacing to be spot on, the score to be very good (though I wouldn't rush to listen to it) and now that I am an animator, I was left awestruck by how well done certain scenes are. I could even feel tears welling up inside me near the end, and this is coming from someone who (unfortunately) hardly ever cries. While I am aware that a major criticism people have of it is that it romanticises Stockholm syndrome, I still loved the concept of someone helping someone else emotionally grow and mature. One thing that I do wonder, however, is if Belle is a good female protagonist, if she perpetuates sexist tropes, or neither. I mean, you could praise her outgoing nature and refusal to buy into Gaston's fantasies. I do love Gaston as an idea, though. Someone else once discussed the idea of there being a 'Gaston' in every society, in that there's always one person who is abhorrent, manipulative, selfish, and misogynistic, yet is seemingly respected and revered by almost everyone around them (I have heard that the remake shows Lefou paying people to say nice things about Gaston, completely ruining what made him a good character.).

I imagine a fair few of you have seen it, so I was hoping some of you might be able to weigh in with your thoughts. No, this is not for the essay. You'll learn more about that once I finish it.

Actually, now that I've had a proper think, perhaps some of the reasons I enjoy this film have changed as I've gotten older. Not to sound whiny and pathetic, but I find the 'perfect' ending where nothing bad happens to be a rather comforting sight, especially in the current world we live in. And of course, the aforementioned newfound appreciation for its art.

Last edited by Zerokohai (04-02-2017 11:51:50 PM)

Amused by the giant doses of misogyny and body-policing showing up in the rage over The Assignment. It may be a bullshit movie (all Walter Hill movies indulge in their share of swagger bullshit), but you can't really go "this is transphobic" in the same complaint as, "Michele Rodriguez doesn't look enough like a man! They should've cast someone more mannish." Extra points if they then go on to talk about Sigourney Weaver and call her mannish or mention "unconventional looks."