*sigh* I laughed at the scene in question, I thought it was funny because of the character, not the 'ew transsexual' I think Moviebob is kinda throwing this outta proportion. Even if it were harmful to the transsexual community as a whole, its one joke in a critically canned movie. Its not going anywhere. The movie has been shown to be horrible without the inclusion of this joke. All this seems to be picking at a corpse like a vulture, to inflate ones own ego on how damn accepting they are of other. Hey moviebob, you on more than one occasion have called out groups of people, how about we just accept them? If you're so accepting why not just let all of those groups live and let live?
Hair of the Dog
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
But her gender is female. The problem isn't her gender but her genitals.Mister Linton said:
I had to google the term. "When an otherwise straight male is persuaded to, or on a whim in the heat of the moment, engages in a homosexual act of which he later regrets and is ashamed." Is it gay if the penis is a woman's? That's actually the reason why I asked the earlier question about how different it would be if he had been pegged by a non-trans woman instead.ManInRed said:
And you know what my guess is? It would have been the same. Because ultimately, I think the issue is that people are insecure in their sexuality and they call everything "gay", even when it's happening between a man and a woman, provided the man is perceived in a more submissive role or position. (Note that if Stu payed her for that, she was the "submissive" one considering she did what he asked her to do, and he was topping from the bottom.)
Dan Savage actually commented on how many letters he gets about "am I gay?" or "is he gay?" He quoted one that said "when I give my wife oral sex, I like my nipples touched. Am I gay?" and Dan explained how no amount or nipple stimulation would make giving oral sex to a woman tolerable. But he has lots of questions about anal stuff, or men who like women, but who also likes penises, so they like men with penises. Because they don't like men, so they like their penises on women.
Anyways. I don't like that kind of humour anyways. I don't find it funny when bad things happen to people. The first movie isn't my kind of movie either. So I guess there is even less of a point in cases like this one.
The way I remember it, the point was this.Monoochrom said:
Bob: It's a very good thing for a black person to play a white role, but unacceptable for a white person to play a black role. Why? Because white people have a surplus of role models to draw from in fiction while blacks, asians, and other "non-whites" have a comparatively minuscule number of fictional role models. Having someone of color play a white character is barely a scratch in the number of white role models out there but is a huge addition to the population of black role models. Conversely, white people are not so in need of roles that a white person needs to play a colored role, but having that role taken away from black people is a very big deal because there aren't nearly as many black roles to start with.
He explained it very well, and I'm probably bastardizing his explanation a bit, re-watch the Big Picture episode he mentioned this in if you want the exact wording, but I don't see how he could be misunderstood except by people who actively want there to be significantly more white roles than other racial roles out there.
As for the "not a perfect world" statement, that was in reference to the fact that in a perfect world, we wouldn't care about race in the first place and thus, statistically, every race would have about the same number of roles. But we don't live in this perfect world and whites dominate the fictional landscape, so replacing a white man with someone of a different race is a significant, if minor, step forward, while replacing someone of another race with a white person is a major step backward.
I'm not saying that the scene was funny (it wasn't), I'm arguing that the scene isn't homo/transphobic just because someone reacts badly to a situation it is perfectly reasonable to react badly to. Bob, on the other hand, thinks that makes it so.monojono said:
While all of that is well and good as a long term goal, we need short term steps to get that far. Women may still be underrepresented in the workplace but they never would have gotten past the glass ceiling without affirmative action, even if ideally the gender of a potential employee shouldn't matter.Monoochrom said:
Um... No?
I never saw the first Hangover, but found the second to be quite humorous. And even though some things may require knowing something of the previous film, isn't that why it's called a sequel?
Moreover, while being transexual certainly does not make one less than a human being, to a large percentage of people (including me) it is both quite gross and disturbing.
Would any straight males honestly say you would not be slightly disgusted bringing a girl home only to find out she had a little more than you bargained for?
I never saw the first Hangover, but found the second to be quite humorous. And even though some things may require knowing something of the previous film, isn't that why it's called a sequel?
Moreover, while being transexual certainly does not make one less than a human being, to a large percentage of people (including me) it is both quite gross and disturbing.
Would any straight males honestly say you would not be slightly disgusted bringing a girl home only to find out she had a little more than you bargained for?
Saying ethnicity shouldn't be taken into account at all is cute, but unrealistic. At the very least, it should be taken into account when characters are supposed to be related by blood: they can't very well all be different ethnicities. But also, with adaptations, a character already exists and is described, and you should first try to match that character.
Gender shouldn't matter either but the story might be about a character getting pregnant and you can't very well cast a male actor for that and have the script be exactly the same with nothing explained. In movies too, some character stories will be affected by their ethnicity, as will the relationship between some characters, etc.
If you're creating a script from scratch, I agree you should take the population's percentages for ethnicity and roll a d100 and match the character's ethnicity to that or something (more elaborate way of flipping a coin when there are more than two options). But during the script writing, it might have an effect on the dialogue, or even the story. And imagine how much harder castings would get if they were just "looking for person of any age to play..." It helps that they restrict it to an age range, a gender, an ethnicity, even if when they find someone who's perfect for the role they can say "screw this" and rework the script if need be. But they can't be totally colorblind.
When adapting from something especially, people will have expectations. If the character is supposed to like yellow but they make the character like red, the fans are going to rage (even though red is obviously a better-looking colour
) and you expect them not to care if instead the change is from Asian guy to Black woman, or something? Obviously people will care.
I suggest we take it into the "Skin Deep [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.282806-The-Big-Picture-Skin-Deep]" topic though, as we're drifting from this topic here.
Gender shouldn't matter either but the story might be about a character getting pregnant and you can't very well cast a male actor for that and have the script be exactly the same with nothing explained. In movies too, some character stories will be affected by their ethnicity, as will the relationship between some characters, etc.
If you're creating a script from scratch, I agree you should take the population's percentages for ethnicity and roll a d100 and match the character's ethnicity to that or something (more elaborate way of flipping a coin when there are more than two options). But during the script writing, it might have an effect on the dialogue, or even the story. And imagine how much harder castings would get if they were just "looking for person of any age to play..." It helps that they restrict it to an age range, a gender, an ethnicity, even if when they find someone who's perfect for the role they can say "screw this" and rework the script if need be. But they can't be totally colorblind.
When adapting from something especially, people will have expectations. If the character is supposed to like yellow but they make the character like red, the fans are going to rage (even though red is obviously a better-looking colour
) and you expect them not to care if instead the change is from Asian guy to Black woman, or something? Obviously people will care.I suggest we take it into the "Skin Deep [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.282806-The-Big-Picture-Skin-Deep]" topic though, as we're drifting from this topic here.
While I still find their over reaction quite necessary I do see what you mean in comparing the two movies
I havn't actually seen the scene, but I agree with you as far as to say that it doesn't sound homo/transphobic unless it's intention is to get laughs. As a comedy film people will naturally assume that's the purpose of it because as monojono said: 'I don't want to see a realistic depiction of events giving someone a nervous breakdown in a comedy film.'Crimson_Dragoon said:
Still, I reiterate I havn't seen the film, I'm only working on what I've heard so if there's flaws in my view then I concede my ignorance.
The problem with reviewing a comedy is that comedy is extremely subjective. The reviewer may have very different ideas of what is humorous than the viewer, which means any attempt by the reviewer to judge the jokes for the viewer's benefit is pretty pointless. One way to review a comedy then, would be to inspect the other parts of the film and look at "meanings" behind jokes, which unfortunately leads to gross overanalysis of the jokes themselves. Unfortunately Bob did both things wrong here, in my opinion. He reviewed how funny he thought everything was, and looked too deep into things. For the record, Stu's reaction to having sex with a transvestite was not over the top, it's exactly how most heterosexual males would've reacted to having just found out they had just gotten fucked in the ass by a guy(and finished too), the transexual part just allowed the joke to sneak up a little better, and fit with the stereotypes of Bangkok(exactly what the first film did with Las Vegas stereotypes).
You should not have to take any crap about questioning the transsexual scene. It is the job of a critic to take scenes like that, hold them up to the light and ask "Are we all OK with that?" Maybe sometimes everyone will yell back "Yes, what's your point?" But its better than letting material like that sliding by unexamined.
I don't dance, and I no nothing about the art form. But I have watched So You Think You Can Dance just to see girls in skimpy costumes, jump around with firm sexy bodies. I don't take offense when the judges trash the dancers delivery.
I think everyone can admit the Expendables, and Hangover part 2, are mediocre and unsophisticated. so how can it hurt anyones feelings when someone who is openly an elitist movie critic, picks on these movies. IF you liked them that only means you are unsophisticated in the context of movie taste. This does not mean you are dumb, but when you are triggered to defend a mediocre movie with the threat of your personal identity in the balance. YOu do look kind of dumb. Just learn to live with the fact that you can enjoy things other can't. That makes you special.
I think everyone can admit the Expendables, and Hangover part 2, are mediocre and unsophisticated. so how can it hurt anyones feelings when someone who is openly an elitist movie critic, picks on these movies. IF you liked them that only means you are unsophisticated in the context of movie taste. This does not mean you are dumb, but when you are triggered to defend a mediocre movie with the threat of your personal identity in the balance. YOu do look kind of dumb. Just learn to live with the fact that you can enjoy things other can't. That makes you special.
So for some reason the discussion here has devolved to transgendered politics. I'm going to say several things early to clear it up: yes, I would be very affected if I was in the same situation; no, I don't think that makes me a bigot; no, it is not necessarily offensive to highlight a person's differences or to emphasize on this specification; no, in this particular case it doesn't seem pretty wrong. But I don't care about that. What I want to say is that many are lambasting Chipman for focusing on this one aspect of the movie and only this one. I'm going to say this right now.
Every critic has a right to blast a movie for one--JUST one--scene if it summarizes every thing that offends and ridicules one's beliefs, and affirms that every other scene in the movie will only continue to resonate around that one scene. I don't know how that scene went. I don't know how it fits with the rest of the movie. But if Chipman is convinced that the movie stands on that one scene, then he can pan it for simply that. Maybe he is being hysterical for calling the movie transphobic; reading on it, it seems to be a case of the script writers lacking creativity (the kind we're all familiar with; when you're writing a paper and the words do not come to you, so you just start writing cliched phrases because you're dry). But he took the time to build a solid foundation on why the movie failed due to this single piece. That's professionalism. That's how the trade goes. You can disagree with it, you can hate it, you can call the writer a complete, ethically-devoid weirdo, but if you call that writer a hack, or a know-nothing, you better have some credentials on you.
Every critic has a right to blast a movie for one--JUST one--scene if it summarizes every thing that offends and ridicules one's beliefs, and affirms that every other scene in the movie will only continue to resonate around that one scene. I don't know how that scene went. I don't know how it fits with the rest of the movie. But if Chipman is convinced that the movie stands on that one scene, then he can pan it for simply that. Maybe he is being hysterical for calling the movie transphobic; reading on it, it seems to be a case of the script writers lacking creativity (the kind we're all familiar with; when you're writing a paper and the words do not come to you, so you just start writing cliched phrases because you're dry). But he took the time to build a solid foundation on why the movie failed due to this single piece. That's professionalism. That's how the trade goes. You can disagree with it, you can hate it, you can call the writer a complete, ethically-devoid weirdo, but if you call that writer a hack, or a know-nothing, you better have some credentials on you.
All i have to say is, KEEP RANTING MOVIEBOB! i love every moment of it, its awesome as well as being an actual educated opinion instead of just a blind ignorance like the rest of us seriously though: keep bringing the wisdom! and know that you lecture goes well with the 1973 song remains the same live album by led zeppelin
seriously though: keep bringing the wisdom! and know that you lecture goes well with the 1973 song remains the same live album by led zeppelin 
I'll be damned if I'm called a bigot by anyone who's understanding of sexual orientation is that no one in an enlightened society even cares. Please, introduce yourself to some people offline, sexual identity is important to a lot of people that are perfectly fine with people of all other sexualities and gender identities.incal11 said:
To all those saying Stu overreacted, the fact that it was a transexual was only part of him being upset. Does anyone think that maybe he is more upset by the fact that he had sex with a hooker the night before he got married? That the transexual part only compounded the problem?
Way to go escapist denezins. Relationships have no importance. Just the sexual status of a person.
Way to go escapist denezins. Relationships have no importance. Just the sexual status of a person.
Ooooh, she's a transexual, oh my! Dehumanize and insult her, demeaning everyone involved with this.