Sucker Punch

Rot your brains, then rot our boards

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
pseudoidiot
Sexy Beard Man
Posts: 5101
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:30 pm UTC
Location: Kansas City
Contact:

Sucker Punch

Postby pseudoidiot » Tue Jul 27, 2010 3:23 pm UTC

I first heard of this a few days ago when some posters were shown at Comic Con (http://www.getthebigpicture.net/blog/20 ... punch.html). The visuals were pretty cool, but I didn't know anything about the movie.

Yesterday, I got to see the trailer: http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/suckerpunch/

Still, I really wasn't sure what the movie was about, but I find the visuals to be really compelling.

Finally got around to looking up some more info:
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/07/ ... t-trailer/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucker_Punch_%28film%29

Can't say the premise entirely grabs me, but coupled with the trailer, I think I definitely want to see this flick.
Derailed : Gaming Outside the Box.
SecondTalon wrote:*swoons* I love you, all powerful pseudoidiot!
ShootTheChicken wrote:I can't stop thinking about pseudoidiot's penis.

User avatar
Zarq
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:29 pm UTC
Location: Third Rock from Earth's Yellow Sun

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby Zarq » Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:13 pm UTC

The posters reminded me of Bitch Slap (2009). Not having seen that movie, I don't know if that's a good or a bad thing.
You rang?

"It is better to shit yourself, than to die of constipation." - Some picture on reddit

User avatar
ArgonV
Posts: 1792
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:08 pm UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby ArgonV » Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:46 pm UTC

Well, Bitch Slap ventured into 'So bad it's good' territory for me personally
Last edited by ArgonV on Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:48 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby cephalopod9 » Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:32 am UTC

I'm not entirely sure how I feel about Zack Snyder. Pretty sure I've liked all his other works, and even when he overdoes the slow-mo he does some pretty impressive action.

The 'all female leads', is looking like a serious plus, but I could also see this going the Exploitative in a Big Way route, the actresses are looking pretty, thin, and white.... but I don't know, I remember thinking Silk Specter II looked notably human in the movie, can't say what exactly, except for times when her skin looked like skin and not like airbrushing.

Also hard to tell at this point what's characteristics of the movie, and what's all in the advertising. It might be kind of awesome if the studio would take a stab at actually marketing it towards women and girls (maybe tap into the enormous audiences going to see werewolf fights) instead of 'heeey, fetish outfits!'.
Image

cv4
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 8:32 pm UTC

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby cv4 » Sun Aug 15, 2010 6:21 pm UTC

Looks interesting to say the least. And the leads are some good looking girls. I'm intrigued.

User avatar
axilog14
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 3:20 am UTC
Location: Manila, Philippines

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby axilog14 » Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:59 pm UTC

Even if this did turn out as some cheesy adrenalin-poisoning-type mindscrewy special effects extravaganza, at least it would still make some headway as per putting more female-centric action movies out there. I'm not entirely optimistic about this one though: if this movie didn't somehow resort to snuffing out its central posse one by one or strangling the audience with the lead character's apparent romantic tension with that guy from the trailer then I would already be impressed.

Personally I'll see this if only for the sake of the pretty geek-out visuals. I was pretty indifferent to 300 but I did kind of enjoy Dawn of the Dead and Watchmen.
"Yes, my life is pathetic. But I still prefer it to the alternative!"

User avatar
novax6
Posts: 678
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 7:06 am UTC
Location: CA

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby novax6 » Wed Aug 18, 2010 9:23 am UTC

Definitely keeping an eye on this one. His movies may be at times shallow (300) and not always the best written (Dawn of the Dead), but at the very least he always has great action scenes, and fantastic visuals.

Also, it has steampunk gun-samurais, nazis, and dragons. How can you go wrong with that?

User avatar
DreadArchon
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:29 pm UTC
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby DreadArchon » Sat Aug 21, 2010 8:51 pm UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:The 'all female leads', is looking like a serious plus...

I especially like the fact that he was explicitly and publicly forbidden from doing this by his producers. (Rumor has it that Warner Bros. has a "no female leads" policy; that sounds suspiciously dumb to me, but there are a lot of sources on that.)


the actresses are looking pretty, thin, and white...

Jamie Chung is rather Asian, and I think Vanessa Hudgens is whatever the hell the Basically Decent term for a human mongrel is these days. ("Multiethnic" perhaps? Or is that offensive already? I can seriously never keep up with this shit.) At any rate, I think the girls are supposed to come from middle-class families in the 50's, so "thin and white" would be pretty normal.


Edit:
novax6 wrote:Also, it has steampunk gun-samurais, nazis, and dragons. How can you go wrong with that?

Each of those scenes will be 5 minutes long, the movie will be focused on 2 hours of teenage angst, and the "twist ending" Snyder hinted at will be exactly what 90% of us immediately assumed it would be when he said that.

User avatar
RAGUS
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 4:22 am UTC
Location: Denton, TX

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby RAGUS » Thu Sep 23, 2010 4:47 am UTC

Pans Labyrinth + 300 + Descent + Steampunk + Emily Browning


I suppose I could be coerced into spending 90 minutes watching that...

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby cephalopod9 » Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:55 am UTC

new trailer

I don't know that I need it to even make sense and have a plot. I would watch 90 minutes of that trailer. (but I don't want to get bored of it and there's ... 5 months :c until the full movie)

robots
Image

User avatar
DreadArchon
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:29 pm UTC
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby DreadArchon » Sun Nov 07, 2010 3:15 pm UTC

Yay, thanks for the update Ceph. :D

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby cephalopod9 » Wed Dec 08, 2010 7:57 am UTC

Here's a weird question, how much sexuality/sex appeal do you all see in the trailers?
I kinda notice this tendency of Zack Snyder's work to allow people to see what they want to see (and for a somewhat disturbing number of people, what they want to see seems to be non stop penis...) and not being attracted to women, I mainly see awesome action sequences and close ups of faces.
So I'm just confused as hell with the people on IMDB who seem to think the trailers are exploding with panty and cleavage shots, or some kind of teenage lesbian orgy... Am I missing something, or is that kind of a stretch?
Some of it I can sort of understand, like the confusion about actors/actresses and the characters they play. Because we have stuff like 20 - 27 year olds playing as highschool sophomores, it's hard to tell what age a twenty two year old actress is supposed be portraying.
However, they loose me after a point.

Also got to thinking about the depressingly high percentage of action heroines motivated by babies. Now I'm kinda bummed out about how rare it is for female characters to fight for themselves in their own stories.
Image

User avatar
ArgonV
Posts: 1792
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:08 pm UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby ArgonV » Wed Dec 08, 2010 12:10 pm UTC

Well, as a straight guy, I don't think it's overly sexualized either. There are panty shots, but not in a sexual manner, if you ask me. I also couldn't make out the teenage lesbian orgy.
Although I have to admit, the costumes the girls are wearing in the dreamworld (?) definitely are sexy and cute, petite girls with huge weapons I also find entertaining to look at.
Then again, since this seems to be some anime/Alice in Wonderland/Steam punk mash up, I wouldn't have expected anything else.

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby SlyReaper » Wed Dec 08, 2010 12:47 pm UTC

Hot girls, steampunk, nazis, how could this film possibly be bad?

Do we know yet when this film is going to be released?
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
ArgonV
Posts: 1792
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:08 pm UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby ArgonV » Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:51 pm UTC

March 25th or so in the US. I just hope they don't pull a Scott Pilgrim on us Dutchies and release it 4-5 months later... :roll:

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby cephalopod9 » Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:27 am UTC

ArgonV wrote:There are panty shots, but not in a sexual manner, if you ask me.
My thoughts are that it's not a "panty shot" if it isn't in a sexual manner. I only caught the moment where Baby Doll flips over the spear, and there she was wearing a cheer leading sort of outfit, so there weren't actually any panties to be seen. Were there others?
The first trailer had a few seconds of burlesque type moves, but even those seemed to encourage empathy more than objectification to me.
I do feel a tad conflicted over all, on the one hand they have those ridiculous cheesecake posters, on the other hand, I'm sexy in my fantasies, I like wearing thigh-high socks.

4 months to go. I kinda wonder why Snyder goes for March releases...
Image

User avatar
ArgonV
Posts: 1792
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:08 pm UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby ArgonV » Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:44 am UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:
ArgonV wrote:There are panty shots, but not in a sexual manner, if you ask me.
My thoughts are that it's not a "panty shot" if it isn't in a sexual manner. I only caught the moment where Baby Doll flips over the spear, and there she was wearing a cheer leading sort of outfit, so there weren't actually any panties to be seen. Were there others?

Well, there's the dormitory scene and a scene where there rehearsing ballet or something. As I said, not really sexualized. However, the posters... Just look at number 5 and 6. Not that I mind though. And cheer leading outfit? Japanese school girl outfit. As I said, sexy costume

cephalopod9 wrote:The first trailer had a few seconds of burlesque type moves, but even those seemed to encourage empathy more than objectification to me.

I agree. And since the target demographic seems to be men, I'd say it's also some fan service.

cephalopod9 wrote:I do feel a tad conflicted over all, on the one hand they have those ridiculous cheesecake posters, on the other hand, I'm sexy in my fantasies, I like wearing thigh-high socks.

That's actually quite a good point. It's their fantasy, so they'd imagine themselves as they want to.

User avatar
Thadlerian
Posts: 336
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 7:58 pm UTC
Location: Norway

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby Thadlerian » Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:37 pm UTC

ArgonV wrote:Well, there's the dormitory scene and a scene where there rehearsing ballet or something. As I said, not really sexualized. However, the posters... Just look at number 5 and 6. Not that I mind though. And cheer leading outfit? Japanese school girl outfit. As I said, sexy costume

Never mind the outfits, why do all of them have identical facial expressions? Hazy eyes, slightly parted lips - where is the clenched-jaw determination, and focused eyes taking in and evaluating a threat somewhere behind the camera's perspective?

I have difficulties seeing these trailers and posters as anything but overly sexualized. I don't think this movie aims to present any challenge to gender roles. Everything about the female characters' appearances is too fan-servicey for that. It's a "willing suspension of disbelief" thing. If a female lead in an action movie is designed like a sex object, I'm not buying the premise that the character is "strong", even if some lines in the script attempt to "tell" it. I don't believe strong women would consistently dress like that if given a choice. I think they would choose practical and comfortable. The teaser and trailer indicates at least parts of this movie take place in a winter setting.

An argument against this view is that a strong woman might aim to intimidate men, and control them with temptation - that a strong woman can wear fetish outfits despite the connotations, as if to defy them, or redefine them. I see several problems with this view:

1: People are individuals. Some strong women might choose an approach like this. Others won't. The movie posters presents all the action characters consistently using this style, with only surface-detail individual expression.
2: From a man's perspective, the idea of this kind of power is logical and self-evident. In reality, this power is far from something that can be freely wielded with predictable and safe results. Female sexuality as a weapon is a two-edged sword - the threshold between "enough" and "too much" is arbitrary, and when crossed it will come back and bite and stigmatize the wielder. Kids learn this at school.
3: Ultimately, this woman remains defined by a men. Even if she can effectively control their thoughts and actions this way, the male presence is necessary for her identity. It's a man's domain, as men have dressed up women for male pleasure for ages. In Anthropology we learned about Pacific island republics trying to resist Western cultural influences by reclaiming their pre-imperial indigenous culture. The problem was, the cultural imagery they ended up promoting was a caricature of their actual past, coloured by Western perceptions of noble savages and "ethnicity" and whatnot. If you rebel with the imagery of your opponent as symbols, your new identity will still be within your opponent's domain. No matter how sexy you look, you're conforming to an ideal created by a man with Photoshop. You're not free.

Actually strong female characters would act without regard for male appraisal. This is the problem with depictions of strong women in popular culture - somewhere, somehow, the man is present, dictating, explicitly or implicitly - before or behind the camera - with or without intention - how female strength should be expressed, setting boundaries, defining parameters.

I was intrigued by the partly Diesel-punk premise of this movie, but the fetish costumes and suggestive facial expressions has effectively scared me off. As a heterosexual male, nonetheless.

Male voice-over in the teaser wrote:This is your journey. If you succeed, it will set you free.

No, it won't. In your head, you'll still be the property of men.

User avatar
Zarq
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:29 pm UTC
Location: Third Rock from Earth's Yellow Sun

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby Zarq » Fri Dec 10, 2010 3:11 pm UTC

If a free person can't chose to conform to some ideal, then how is that person free?


Not that I'm disagreeing with the fact that this movie is nothing but fanservice. I mean, ninjas, dragons, robots? All in one movie?
You rang?

"It is better to shit yourself, than to die of constipation." - Some picture on reddit

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby cephalopod9 » Sat Dec 11, 2010 9:07 am UTC

ArgonV wrote:And cheer leading outfit? Japanese school girl outfit. As I said, sexy costume
"cheer leading outfit" as in short skirt over spanks/bloomers/underwear-obscuring shorts. That is not what is typically depicted (in anime) paired with Japanese School girl outfits.
Thadlerian wrote: I don't think this movie aims to present any challenge to gender roles.
I don't think it was a specific goal either. At the same time, I sort of feel like it already has. Even if it is basically a case of not being as big a jerk as most of the other guys. Even though I couldn't find a reliable source for Warner's "no female leads" policy, that it's believable says something about deeply ingrained preconceptions about female characters. I'm still hoping, not expecting, some marketing execs will come to their senses and we'll get some girl-oriented/ women focused trailers. As in "female half of the population! we expect this action movie will appeal to you!"
Thadlerian wrote:2: From a man's perspective, the idea of this kind of power is logical and self-evident. In reality, this power is far from something that can be freely wielded with predictable and safe results. Female sexuality as a weapon is a two-edged sword - the threshold between "enough" and "too much" is arbitrary, and when crossed it will come back and bite and stigmatize the wielder. Kids learn this at school.
I saw it much more as sexy females with weapons, and didn't see any indication of the characters using sexuality to over come obstacles.
Thadlerian wrote:Actually strong female characters would act without regard for male appraisal. This is the problem with depictions of strong women in popular culture - somewhere, somehow, the man is present, dictating, explicitly or implicitly - before or behind the camera - with or without intention - how female strength should be expressed, setting boundaries, defining parameters.
I wouldn't argue that the costumes are in anyway empowering, but I would allow them to be justified by sufficiently explained to the character's identities. On the one hand, it's wrong to suggest that making oneself sexually appealing or available makes one strong, on the other, suggesting that these clothing tropes can only ever exist as a projection of male perspective is the kind of argument that women only ever put on make-up because they want men to hit on them.
The movie, and the marketing (the posters especially, which sort of stand out to me. kinda like the Watchmen posters that made it look more like a typical comic book movie) for it definitely use the outfits in ways meant to titillate the audience, within the story itself, I don't see enough male presence to suggest that it has anything to do with why the characters might choose to dress as they do.
What would you have them wear?
Image

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby Lucrece » Sun Dec 12, 2010 5:56 pm UTC

1) 300 was a P.O.S., deeply offesive heterosexist propaganda that distorted so viciously who Spartans actually were. For that reason any movie made by this person is deeply suspect to me. If you don't think he likes to exploit women, just think back to the writhing naked girl in the oracles scene.

2) I get supremely peeved that the leading women turn out to be puny, Kim Kardashian clones who magically can lift weaponry and have deep knowledge of combat. While looking extremely good, having perfect hair and make-up.

It's so comic-like. Female superpower is determined by kicking ass while looking like a super model. Not an average looking woman-- but something out of a fantasy.

God forbid that a female combat veteran show some muscle to reveal physical prowess and experience. Even from this talking, you don't get the impression at all that these women are warriors. Try talking to female soldiers and police officers. You don't have to be chewing tobacco and look terribly unkempt, but the other extreme is totally obnoxious and even less believable.


Yes, it's all a fantasy by this girl. But why couldn't they have chosen another female lead then with a different, tougher background?

A good candidate would be someone like Michelle Rodriguez-- she can play the parts of female warrior convincingly and pull off a look as well- just look at Avatar.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Zarq
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:29 pm UTC
Location: Third Rock from Earth's Yellow Sun

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby Zarq » Sun Dec 12, 2010 6:05 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:1) 300 was a P.O.S., deeply offesive heterosexist propaganda that distorted so viciously who Spartans actually were. For that reason any movie made by this person is deeply suspect to me. If you don't think he likes to exploit women, just think back to the writhing naked girl in the oracles scene.

Snyder didn't write 300. It was based on a graphic novel by Frank Miller. Hating Snyder-films for reasons concerning story is a bit strange and unjustified.
You rang?

"It is better to shit yourself, than to die of constipation." - Some picture on reddit

User avatar
Thadlerian
Posts: 336
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 7:58 pm UTC
Location: Norway

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby Thadlerian » Sun Dec 12, 2010 6:34 pm UTC

Zarq wrote:If a free person can't chose to conform to some ideal, then how is that person free?

It depends on whether or not the choice is actual. Does conformity and non-conformity exist on an equal basis? Can they realistically choose not to conform to the ideal, and retain all their opportunities and privileges in society, retain full respect in the eyes of their peers?
cephalopod9 wrote:I don't think it was a specific goal either. At the same time, I sort of feel like it already has.

I disagree here. If fanservice is a prerequisite for being able to bend a convention, I see little reason for optimism. What happens when someone tries to create a movie with female leads without compensating with wholesale fanservice? Will Sucker Punch have made any difference, any headway? I don't think this movie will be in substantial conflict with any "no female leads" policy, because it presents no actual threat any underlying chauvinism.

The script may very well be saying "this girl is the protagonist", but as long as "fanservice" is the first thought you get when seeing a movie poster, and the consistent message you get from the trailer, then the technicalities of the script (and technicalities they will be, unless the movie truly creates something new) becomes little more than just another costume or prop (along with mecha, dragons and WWI fighters - and firearms, of course) in what is inherently a sexual play. It's just a charade, and both the studio executives and the audience know it. No convention is actually challenged, because the purpose of the movie is not actually to tell the unique and interesting story of this person whom just so happens to be female (which is usually the purpose of movies with female leads - the kind of movies which Warner allegedly will block) - it is to provoke a specific biochemical response in the average (assumed heterosexual) male viewer's body.

Unless, as I said in parentheses, they surprise us all, and give us a truly meaningful story. I doubt that. Not because I'm cynical, or because it would verify my prejudice. But because they'd really be hard pressed to write a strong, original story that both justifies constant fighting and changes of setting, as well as the strongly trailer-implied Macguffin Chase structure of a significant part of the plot, within two hours.
I saw it much more as sexy females with weapons, and didn't see any indication of the characters using sexuality to over come obstacles.

That one was me going out on a tangent, not commenting on the movie itself. I initially indicated my difficulty in taking fanservice characters seriously when presented as strong characters, and argued that a strong character would have the sovereignty required to choose their own clothing. My three points were made in case anyone wanted to argue that exploitative outfits can - consistently, on a general basis - serve as the proof of character strength and integrity, rather than its mockery.
I wouldn't argue that the costumes are in anyway empowering, but I would allow them to be justified by sufficiently explained to the character's identities.

This point is technically valid. But I believe that making such an allowance would in 999 out of 1000 cases be to give the creator too much credit. The case of Sucker Punch seems particularly solid to me, as the characters appear to be identical, with only cursory cosmetic differences.
... suggesting that these clothing tropes can only ever exist as a projection of male perspective is the kind of argument that women only ever put on make-up because they want men to hit on them.

No, it's not. I believe women put on make/up to conform to deep-set ideals that are imagined as given by a Generalized Other, which is an abstract sum of female and male peers in society. I imagine women wear make-up far more for each other's sake than for men's - to fit in, to be accepted. You wear make-up because that's what you do - the origin of the ideal is too far away in time and culture for you to have to worry about it. But that doesn't change the ideal's origin of male appraisal, nor the fact that it serves (heterosexual) male interests.

I don't mean to say the clothing tropes can impossibly exist independently of the male perspective. I'm just saying this is very, very, very unlikely. On the "tornado-through-scrapyard-assembles-ready-for-flight-Boeing-747" scale. Functionally impossible.
What would you have them wear?

Anything! :)

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8573
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby Zohar » Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:28 pm UTC

Zarq wrote:
Lucrece wrote:1) 300 was a P.O.S., deeply offesive heterosexist propaganda that distorted so viciously who Spartans actually were. For that reason any movie made by this person is deeply suspect to me. If you don't think he likes to exploit women, just think back to the writhing naked girl in the oracles scene.

Snyder didn't write 300. It was based on a graphic novel by Frank Miller. Hating Snyder-films for reasons concerning story is a bit strange and unjustified.

Well in the graphic novel, as far as I remember, neither the men nor the women are sexy. And I think, though I'm not sure, that the oracle scene was new.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Zarq
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:29 pm UTC
Location: Third Rock from Earth's Yellow Sun

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby Zarq » Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:34 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
Zarq wrote:
Lucrece wrote:1) 300 was a P.O.S., deeply offesive heterosexist propaganda that distorted so viciously who Spartans actually were. For that reason any movie made by this person is deeply suspect to me. If you don't think he likes to exploit women, just think back to the writhing naked girl in the oracles scene.

Snyder didn't write 300. It was based on a graphic novel by Frank Miller. Hating Snyder-films for reasons concerning story is a bit strange and unjustified.

Well in the graphic novel, as far as I remember, neither the men nor the women are sexy. And I think, though I'm not sure, that the oracle scene was new.


Oh. I assumed it wasn't new.
Forget what I said then.
You rang?

"It is better to shit yourself, than to die of constipation." - Some picture on reddit

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby Izawwlgood » Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:12 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
Zarq wrote:
Lucrece wrote:1) 300 was a P.O.S., deeply offesive heterosexist propaganda that distorted so viciously who Spartans actually were. For that reason any movie made by this person is deeply suspect to me. If you don't think he likes to exploit women, just think back to the writhing naked girl in the oracles scene.

Snyder didn't write 300. It was based on a graphic novel by Frank Miller. Hating Snyder-films for reasons concerning story is a bit strange and unjustified.

Well in the graphic novel, as far as I remember, neither the men nor the women are sexy. And I think, though I'm not sure, that the oracle scene was new.

The oracle scene was certainly in the comic, and she was certainly an attractive, white skinned, naked boobied lady. As to whether or not she was exploited, I think that was kind of the point; she was being exploited by the oracles. The king even says "Poor exploited girl" or something to that effect.

The men (and queen, for the 2 panels we see her in) in 300 were exceptionally attractive, but in the way that all Frank Miller characters are; Men have huge, square jaws and enormous, broad shoulders, defined abs, and large arms. Women are curvey.

Think Frank Frazetta.

Lucrece, what was your beef with 300?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby cephalopod9 » Tue Dec 14, 2010 11:34 am UTC

They took all the homosexuality out of ancient Greece, and turned into a story about white people defending against and killing a bunch of eastern dark skinned people. There's more than a few criticisms to be made.
(At the same time, it's some gorgeous cinematography, and it as much a story about the futility of spreading democracy/freedom by force. There's some decent reasons to like it, but also a lot of people who like it for the wrong reasons.)
Thadlerian wrote:I believe women put on make/up to conform to deep-set ideals that are imagined as given by a Generalized Other, which is an abstract sum of female and male peers in society. I imagine women wear make-up far more for each other's sake than for men's - to fit in, to be accepted. You wear make-up because that's what you do - the origin of the ideal is too far away in time and culture for you to have to worry about it. But that doesn't change the ideal's origin of male appraisal, nor the fact that it serves (heterosexual) male interests.
What I take issue with is defining women's fashion as entirely and exclusively belonging to the patriarchy. Should they be dressed like men? Do they need to dress conservatively to be taken seriously? Having sex appeal be most important to a woman's appearance is highly problematic, but it's also unhelpful to treat looking like an attractive woman as inherently degrading or disparaging.
Thadlerian wrote:I disagree here. If fanservice is a prerequisite for being able to bend a convention, I see little reason for optimism. What happens when someone tries to create a movie with female leads without compensating with wholesale fanservice? Will Sucker Punch have made any difference, any headway? I don't think this movie will be in substantial conflict with any "no female leads" policy, because it presents no actual threat any underlying chauvinism.
I think in order for something to be "fanservice", it needs to be gratuitous, if not outright disruptive to plot or character development. To me, the term brings to mind specificaly instances where a characters sex appeal takes precedent over all other aspects, which is different from creating a sexy character.
More importantly, I would feel completely differently if the creators had set out to make something especially feminist or progressive. If this movie was Snyder trying to get pats on the back for being feminist ( Joss Whedon kinda does this), I would be dissapointed with the result. But it wasn't. It was just Snyder saying "hey, remember how we made a bad ass action movie with a bunch of dudes? how about we make a bad ass action movie with a bunch of ladies this time?" and Warner is like "nahh, you don't want to do that" and Snyder making it any way, and there also seem to be a few people on imdb going "but whaa? they're girls!?" or such is my understanding.
I kind of like that he's not... about the feminisms, but still recognizes the existing imbalance... I liked his treatment of Ana in Dawn of the Dead, especially in comparison to the original
Spoiler:
Where the woman, Francine? was like "I'm not going to be your cave mother", but then she was the only one to give bandages and injections, for no reason (I think they also had her do the cooking, but i can't remember). In the new one, Ana is a nurse, and it's an important job that makes sense.
He also gave Queen Gorgo her own (troubling, kind of stupid) story, but that probably had a lot to do with pacing. Silk Spectre..s weren't particularly great characters in the source material... I didn't notice a change...
Unless, as I said in parentheses, they surprise us all, and give us a truly meaningful story. I doubt that. Not because I'm cynical, or because it would verify my prejudice. But because they'd really be hard pressed to write a strong, original story that both justifies constant fighting and changes of setting, as well as the strongly trailer-implied Macguffin Chase structure of a significant part of the plot, within two hours [...]
I wouldn't argue that the costumes are in anyway empowering, but I would allow them to be justified by sufficiently explained to the character's identities.

This point is technically valid. But I believe that making such an allowance would in 999 out of 1000 cases be to give the creator too much credit. The case of Sucker Punch seems particularly solid to me, as the characters appear to be identical, with only cursory cosmetic differences.
I'm actually trying not to speculate about the story, because as of late, paying attention to trailers and prerelease material has been a good way to take the fun out of actually seeing a movie... but I can't help it.
The clothing differences are superficial, but to me, they definitely suggest deeper differences in character and background. I want to know more about them, like why does Sweet Pea have a medieval-knight look going on, with the serious looking long sword, and the shoulder guard (...hey, that actually goes down her arm, in a way that could conceivably be useful, instead of sticking up off her should like ridiculous costume/game designers do ridiculously often). While it's possible, I doubt that will be lost or left hanging in the film itself. As for the story
Spoiler:
Macguffin implies that the desired object is only significant to the plot as a motivator, like a pile of money or a magic sword. Since the trailer strongly suggests the fantasy world will parallel reality, which would make the desired object freedom, I don't think that's technically accurate. That's a bit pedantic of me though, and it definitely does have a sort of heist-plot look to it, in the sense of a team coming together to utilize each of their unique talents to accomplish a common goal. Even if it is a retelling of an old story, I don't think any of that indicates that it will be bland or shallow.
Image

User avatar
novax6
Posts: 678
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 7:06 am UTC
Location: CA

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby novax6 » Tue Dec 14, 2010 12:08 pm UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:They took all the homosexuality out of ancient Greece, and turned into a story about white people defending against and killing a bunch of eastern dark skinned people. There's more than a few criticisms to be made.


I think what izzallgood was saying though, is that all of that was present in the actual comic, which Snyder just adapted. Miller's work has never been remotely historically accurate, or realistic, based on what I've seen of his stuff.

Chen
Posts: 5582
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby Chen » Tue Dec 14, 2010 7:44 pm UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:They took all the homosexuality out of ancient Greece, and turned into a story about white people defending against and killing a bunch of eastern dark skinned people. There's more than a few criticisms to be made.


Uh wasn't that the main point of 300? A movie about war and freedom and all that? I mean sure they didn't show any homosexuality in it, but was that a key part in the comic that Snyder decided to ignore for the movie? Or was it not in the comic either? Just because homosexuality was common in the place they were telling the story about, it doesn't really mean the homosexuality should show up in the story.

I can see the complaint about say removing the homosexuality from Troy considering there it was pretty key in why Achilles was so upset at Patrocles dying, but for 300 sexuality in general didn't seem to be a primary theme.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Dec 14, 2010 7:51 pm UTC

The things to be upset about Snyders interpretation are the wussification of the Spartans (seriously, the movie Spartans were WAAAAAY lamer than the comics), and the creation of a completely ridiculous Queens side story.

Everything else was pretty much in the comic. The general with bone blades for hands was added, but that's just flavor/fluff.

And sure, I get it, the comic is what, 30 pages? I would have been completely fine with additional battle scenes, or other oddities of the Persian empire coming to bear against the 300; the comic in fact, glosses over a handful of battles, saying something to the effect of 'they bring all manner of exotic creatures, and they all die'. So sure, pomp it up a bit. Just don't detract from the tale by making the Spartans lovable brits, or include some weird drama about the Queen.

Also, the comic included a number of very dark skinned Spartans, for whatever that's worth.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby Lucrece » Mon Dec 20, 2010 5:24 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Zohar wrote:
Zarq wrote:
Lucrece wrote:1) 300 was a P.O.S., deeply offesive heterosexist propaganda that distorted so viciously who Spartans actually were. For that reason any movie made by this person is deeply suspect to me. If you don't think he likes to exploit women, just think back to the writhing naked girl in the oracles scene.

Snyder didn't write 300. It was based on a graphic novel by Frank Miller. Hating Snyder-films for reasons concerning story is a bit strange and unjustified.

Well in the graphic novel, as far as I remember, neither the men nor the women are sexy. And I think, though I'm not sure, that the oracle scene was new.

The oracle scene was certainly in the comic, and she was certainly an attractive, white skinned, naked boobied lady. As to whether or not she was exploited, I think that was kind of the point; she was being exploited by the oracles. The king even says "Poor exploited girl" or something to that effect.

The men (and queen, for the 2 panels we see her in) in 300 were exceptionally attractive, but in the way that all Frank Miller characters are; Men have huge, square jaws and enormous, broad shoulders, defined abs, and large arms. Women are curvey.

Think Frank Frazetta.

Lucrece, what was your beef with 300?


There was a scene where the protagonist-- a Spartan-- looked at the Athenian reinforcements and rebuked them as weak, "boy-lovers". This coming from a SPARTAN. Spartans were the ones most famous for same-sex pairings, and a clear Hollywood moment when the movie tried to feminized Athenians-- ironic given how the audience would react if they knew that Spartans didn't wear macho short hair cuts with obvious caricaturized facial hair-- but rather they sported incredibly long curly hair tied up in a knot with a clip that would now only be imagined of women.

But the whole of that quip was simply to pander to immature homophobia without having the protagonists outright call the Athenians "faggots" (to disguise the offense so as to cause less backlash, and of course because saying "faggot" would horribly anachronistic-- not that the movie was concerned with anachronisms or accuracy given how they depicted Xerxes-- and I don't even want to get into Xerxes's depiction as a highly creepy, feminized antagonist).
The only thing the movie might have gotten remotely close was Spartan women-- Spartans were the only ones who would allow women to participate in athleticism.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby cephalopod9 » Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:50 am UTC

I like to pretend what they meant was that Spartans! Love! Men!!!

realizing of course that it changes nothing about the director's intent or anyone else's interpretation.
Image

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:13 pm UTC

Yeah, I recall that scene now, and you're right. I believe it is also in the comic, but I could be wrong.

Lucrece wrote:Xerxes's depiction as a highly creepy, feminized antagonist

In the comic, Xerxes is slightly less feminized. I think his portrayal was supposed to be more of a juxtoposition of the grueling, rugged and simple lives the Spartans pursue, considering he has concubines to fluff his concubines.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby cephalopod9 » Sun Jan 16, 2011 8:36 am UTC

I don't know if it's worth mentioning, but I started thinking about it, and, their poses aren't super lady-like. Even on their extra tarted up posters, it's not outrageous to imagine a man in some of the same positions.
As far as movie posters go, I'm kinda stuck on what to compare it to... Kill Bill, Aliens
Image

User avatar
ArgonV
Posts: 1792
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:08 pm UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby ArgonV » Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:58 am UTC

Well, that was a pretty awesome movie. I had a big grin on my face throughout most of it, that's a good sign :D

Spoiler:
Just a bit confused though. Rocket died when she was stabbed by the cook, but did Blondie and Amber got shot by the orderly in the real world as well? Or was that just a visual representation of them getting transferred to isolation? I'm gonna go with them getting shot though, because I doubt Sweet Pea would leave them behind.
And a bit unclear why Babydoll chose the lobotomy. Was it in order to forget everything?

Also, was there anything more going on in the asylum? Like Blue renting the girls out as sex slaves or something? Why else would Babydoll imagine the asylum as a cabaret/brothel?

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby cephalopod9 » Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:06 am UTC

I want to hear good things! But I don't want spoilers!

I disagree with this article, but I like a lot of the discussion in the comments, and the website is really cool.

Racebending.com got invited to a screening! which seems cool, but there are spoilers so I don't want to read it yet.

I'm excited! but still kind of worried I will be dissapointed.
Image

User avatar
DreadArchon
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:29 pm UTC
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby DreadArchon » Fri Mar 25, 2011 7:54 pm UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:I'm excited! but still kind of worried I will be disappointed.


It's exactly as expected. No better, no worse. Now, it was expected to be good, so that's not terrible, but it's faintly disappointing that it wasn't better than expected.

The worst part was...
Spoiler:
...the predictability. Everyone who saw or heard about the original Comic Con panel knew, at that point, just about exactly how the movie would end. The middle parts were mostly expected as well.

I mean, if the deepest fantasy world had spilled into the real world, that would have been unexpected and totally badass. But no, the movie satisfied 200% of your daily predictability (based on a 2000 calorie diet).

I guess I was surprised (and saddened) that Sweet Pea wasn't using her claymore.

I'm also disappointed that Blondie and (especially) Amber didn't put up more of a fight at the end, and that we didn't see a corresponding death for them in the real world. Since Gorsky's role in the real world was different, I suppose it is possible they survived (as she was not subservient to Blue on the top story layer), but probably somewhat the worse for wear.


It was fun to see the lead characters using real combat tactics and working together a lot of the time. I think they'd give their scantily-clad-male counterparts (from 300) a run for their money. :D

User avatar
broken_escalator
They're called stairs
Posts: 3312
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:49 am UTC
Location: _| ̄|○

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby broken_escalator » Fri Mar 25, 2011 9:35 pm UTC

Must see movie.
MUST. SEE. MOVIE.

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby podbaydoor » Fri Mar 25, 2011 9:45 pm UTC

I've had to roll my eyes every time I'm exposed to a trailer for this movie. I hate her make-up. There's no drama or suspension of disbelief when right off the bat, the story makes it impossible - by somehow having us believe that an insane asylum would continue regular lip gloss treatments, Botox injections, and false eyelashes to make their pretty, pitiful, oh-so-virginal inmates continue to look like Disney-Grown-Up.

And the entire thing just looks like a shameless pandering to the male nerd demographic. Ninjas and robots, awesome, but they're being fought by what looks like the stable of Disney tween stars who got too old for the TV channel and got dolled up for maximum ogling of their thighs and lips. We've had our decade of comedies starring schlubby white nerds, action movies made for schlubby white nerds, so much relating going on for our male nerds here - where's the love for us schlubby female nerds, hm? Where's our Alyx and Chell, strong women who don't stop to check that the precise angle of their décolletage is positioned correctly for maximum alluring enticement while they're ostensibly battling the awesome forces of evil?

(Edit: If you bring up Alien or any of the other tired stalwarts, I will beat you in a completely non-sexy manner. One movie doesn't make up for the volcano of other movies going the other way.)
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

User avatar
broken_escalator
They're called stairs
Posts: 3312
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:49 am UTC
Location: _| ̄|○

Re: Sucker Punch

Postby broken_escalator » Fri Mar 25, 2011 10:13 pm UTC

I just like the idea of a crazytown world where they pander to nerdy things like ninjas and robots. I didn't really look at the actresses being sex objects at first, but I would be excited about this movie even if they weren't sexualized. It might even be better if they weren't, I dunno, I have yet to see it! But the people that have talked to me about it likened it to fight club, 300 and scott pilgrim in various ways.

Hopefully I'm not dissapoint.

I don't think anyone is going to argue that this movie empowers women. [sarcasm] You already get to vote, what more do you want!!! [/sarcasm]


Return to “Movies and TV Shows”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests