Well not to worry. Anything that directly acknowledges the ST as canon, which something set after it and featuring its main character obviously will, is an easy pass for me no matter who was directing.
"I like making men uncomfortable...not you though!"
Say what you ******* mean then. You like to make A hole, misogynists uncomfortable to get your point across and the rest of us are fine. This kind of non-specific generalization against all men **** drives young guys to go watch Andrew Taint! And women like her wonder why misogyny is on the rise in young boys. Well done!
But then you also have ask WHY is she making movies for these people, instead of making a movie for the other 99% of the audience that’s actually there hoping to experience a good film."I like making men uncomfortable...not you though!"
Say what you ******* mean then. You like to make A hole, misogynists uncomfortable to get your point across and the rest of us are fine. This kind of non-specific generalization against all men **** drives young guys to go watch Andrew Taint! And women like her wonder why misogyny is on the rise in young boys. Well done!
Edit: 'a**hole' automatically gets corrected to 'fine fellow'
She's an activist. She wants to get in their faces and in their content so they have to see it but it's just driving other people away.But then you also have ask WHY is she making movies for these people, instead of making a movie for the other 99% of the audience that’s actually there hoping to experience a good film.
Those people aren’t going to like your movies no matter what you do, so stop trying to simultaneously appease and agitate them.
It’s so backwards.
Exactly.She's an activist. She wants to get in their faces and in their content so they have to see it but it's just driving other people away.
It's like the stop oil protesters blocking the roads. You're not winning people over and getting them to support you by inconveniencing them.
It's a tough thing to crack though. If she went and made a chick flick with the same kind of themes, the guys she wants to make uncomfortable wouldn't go see it, so it wouldn't get the point across. This way does for a little while, but then you push the rest of the audience away and everybody stops watching.Exactly.
The best way to win people over is by making a good ******* movie.
Well, if nobody watches it then nobody can complain about itIt's a tough thing to crack though. If she went and made a chick flick with the same kind of themes, the guys she wants to make uncomfortable wouldn't go see it, so it wouldn't get the point across. This way does for a little while, but then you push the rest of the audience away and everybody stops watching.
You said accepting the ST as canon was a bad idea.Well not to worry. Anything that directly acknowledges the ST as canon, which something set after it and featuring its main character obviously will, is an easy pass for me no matter who was directing.
We know that this will be the routine because we've seen it play out exactly like that several times now.
There actually IS something wrong with ‘equity’ because it’s replaced merit as the determining factor for who is getting hired.In this day and age you can't have anything remotely progressive without someone saying it's 'woke agenda trash'. I'm kind of sick of it tbh. There's nothing wrong with having equity, behind the camera or infront. But do you really think going out and parading around how progressive you are, that this is the future of film making, that things are changing for the better and you are at the front of that...only for your film to suck *** is doing the progressive movement ANY favours? At least wait to see if the product is well received first, THEN you can go around championing yourself. "Look at this great movie and it was a woman/POC/LGBTQIA+ person that made it". Don't tell me how great it is that a woman is directing if the movie ends up being ****, because a woman who directed **** does nothing for us!
We're on the same side, I want the same as you. Just don't celebrate winning the race before you cross the finish line.
And what if some people don't get a fair shot? There needs to be equity in opportunity.There actually IS something wrong with ‘equity’ because it’s replaced merit as the determining factor for who is getting hired.
Merit should always be the primary factor. Trying to engineer ‘equity’ into the equation just doesn’t work. Hire the best people for the particular project regardless of colour or *** and let the ‘diversity’ chips fall where they may.
There actually IS something wrong with ‘equity’ because it’s replaced merit as the determining factor for who is getting hired.
Merit should always be the primary factor. Trying to engineer ‘equity’ into the equation just doesn’t work. Hire the best people for the particular project regardless of colour or *** and let the ‘diversity’ chips fall where they may.
Enter your email address to join: