7railer 7hread 7

[Mexal]

2 hours ago, Ran said:

Edgar Wright's next film, Last Night in Soho, gets a really evocative trailer:

Great cast, by the looks of it. Very intriguing.

Great trailer. No clue what's going on but totally into the atmosphere. I'm a big fan so will definitely be seeing this.

[Mexal]

This looks like every other movie lately yet I'm still totally going to watch it cause it looks fun and I like fun.

 

[Heartofice]

20 minutes ago, Mexal said:

This looks like every other movie lately yet I'm still totally going to watch it cause it looks fun and I like fun.

 

Looking forward to seeing bad ass women killing lots of men, that’s an original concept. Yawn.

Last night in Soho looks good.

[Veltigar]

4 hours ago, Ran said:

Edgar Wright's next film, Last Night in Soho, gets a really evocative trailer:

Great cast, by the looks of it. Very intriguing.

He can take my money already. Wright plus Anna Taylor Joy and a trailer that looks this strange? I'm in. 

2 hours ago, williamjm said:

It does look very different to his previous work.

I never would have guessed Wright from this. It looks more like something Refn would put out

57 minutes ago, Mexal said:

This looks like every other movie lately yet I'm still totally going to watch it cause it looks fun and I like fun.

 

If by fun, you mean shit than sure :p Everything about this screams either "forced" or "contrived" at me.

35 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Looking forward to seeing bad ass women killing lots of men, that’s an original concept. Yawn.

Imagine swapping the genders in this description. The outrage would be gigantic XD

[Mexal]

Just now, Veltigar said:

If by fun, you mean shit than sure :p Everything about this screams either "forced" or "contrived" at me.

I'm a sucker for movies that require no thought for me and head shots  

[Veltigar]

1 minute ago, Mexal said:

I'm a sucker for movies that require no thought for me and head shots  

I like those as well, but this is probably going to be one of those films where I'd have to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to suppress thinking about how on the nose and unsubtle the plotting, characters, etc. are 

[Mexal]

1 minute ago, Veltigar said:

I like those as well, but this is probably going to be one of those films where I'd have to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to suppress thinking about how on the nose and unsubtle the plotting, characters, etc. are 

Luckily, I'm not a deeper thinker so it'll be easy for me 

[mormont]

10 minutes ago, Veltigar said:

Imagine swapping the genders in this description.

Yeah, but that isn't the correct swap, is it? The correct swap is 'bad ass men killing lots of other men', which is, y'know, just a regular action film.

That trailer reads to me as just a John Wick film with Keanu swapped out for an ensemble of female actors. Silly, fun, awesome. I'll watch it happily. Not too sure about Gillan's accent, but the rest of it looks like a good evening in.

[Kalbear]

It looks like a thematic sequel to Shoot 'Em Up, so I'm going to totally see the hell out of it

[Mexal]

2 minutes ago, Kalebear said:

It looks like a thematic sequel to Shoot 'Em Up, so I'm going to totally see the hell out of it

Hahaha I had that very thought when I saw Pauly G.

[Veltigar]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

That trailer reads to me as just a John Wick film with Keanu swapped out for an ensemble of female actors. Silly, fun, awesome. I'll watch it happily. Not too sure about Gillan's accent, but the rest of it looks like a good evening in.

More like the remake of Ghostbusters with ghosts swapped for generic bad guys.

1 hour ago, mormont said:

Yeah, but that isn't the correct swap, is it? The correct swap is 'bad ass men killing lots of other men', which is, y'know, just a regular action film.

I'm not sure what you mean here? Did I say anything about correct swap or not? You can't deny that just swapping genders in Heartoffice comments would probably stand for a film that would cause a lot of controversy. For good reasons I'd say. 

[Heartofice]

6 hours ago, Veltigar said:

I'm not sure what you mean here? Did I say anything about correct swap or not? You can't deny that just swapping genders in Heartoffice comments would probably stand for a film that would cause a lot of controversy. For good reasons I'd say. 

The ‘correct’ swap ( whatever that means) would be a movie where women violently murdered other women. Curiously we aren’t getting that, and rarely do. Instead there is the enourmous slew of movies where the ‘good guys’ are women, but the bad guys are men.

I think even one instance of a man killing a woman would be internet outrage hell, but a woman killing dozens of men is cause for celebration?

It is funny that Hollywood’s main response to MeToo hasn’t been to make the sexes more equal across genres ( where is the wave of male led rom coms?) but to focus on pretending that women are as murderous and violent as men. 

[mormont]

7 hours ago, Veltigar said:

I'm not sure what you mean here? Did I say anything about correct swap or not? You can't deny that just swapping genders in Heartoffice comments would probably stand for a film that would cause a lot of controversy. For good reasons I'd say. 

I'm just pointing out that what the filmmakers seem to be going for is an action movie whose leads happen to be female: not an action movie where specifically women kill specifically men.

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

I think even one instance of a man killing a woman would be internet outrage hell, but a woman killing dozens of men is cause for celebration?

Have you not watched any action films recently?

Also, there is no implication in that trailer that the gender of the people the leads are killing actually matters.

[Ran]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

It is funny that Hollywood’s main response to MeToo hasn’t been to make the sexes more equal across genres ( where is the wave of male led rom coms?) but to focus on pretending that women are as murderous and violent as men. 

I've never thought about it that way before. That's actually rather insightful, IMO, because crime statistics do show an extremely gendered difference in violent crime (men are some 4 times likelier to commit murder and violent crime globally, and are more likely to be the victims of violent crime in nearly every country in the world, per the UN).

What I'd say is that, as violence is largely a male domain, it makes sense that being able to be really good at dishing it out is a male power fantasy. Conversely, though, I think this is also why depictions of women being capable of beautifully choreographed death-dealing is a female power fantasy precisely because women are generally far less likely to commit violent crime and are far more likely to not even stand a fighting chance if they become victims of violence. It's a different kind of power fantasy for women. 

But... it changes, I think, if the majority of people killed in a movie are women. If John Wick was mowing down legions of women, people would double-check to see if Neil LaBute had decided to try his hand at action movies. As far as I can tell, there's never been an action film where the majority of dead mooks are women. Maybe some sort of B-movie shlock? But Google finds nothing. Oh, I can find other genres where women make the majority of victims, sure... but those are slasher films or films about serial killers, where the villain is clear.

Though, Mormont is right, men killing women does happen in action movies, with little remark, where the good guy is the hero and the woman is the villain. But, in general, in those movies the woman is a singular figure, or perhaps there's two or three, while the vast majority of people killed remain men.

@mormont

Quote

Also, there is no implication in that trailer that the gender of the people the leads are killing actually matters.

"I'm going to do terrible things to you girls" and "Some baaaad men are coming to hurt us" says otherwise. There's some explicitly gendered language in the trailer.

I also notice that there doesn't seem to be even a hint of a male ally for the women in the film. Giamatti employs Gillain's character and "protects" her.. until she's a liability and then he cuts her loose.

 

[mormont]

6 minutes ago, Ran said:

"I'm going to do terrible things to you girls" and "Some baaaad men are coming to hurt us" says otherwise. There's some explicitly gendered language in the trailer.

This is a bit of a stretch, until and unless we see more of the film. Yes, there is gendered language, in that the characters are accurately referred to by their gender. This kind of language (implicit gendered threat) exists in all action films: the only difference here is that it's directed to or spoken by a female action lead rather than to a female secondary character who will be protected by a male action lead.

One could also, perhaps, suggest that the tropes of motherhood are apparently important to the film - but see also Old Man Logan, etc. where the same kind of tropes are applied to male leads and the plethora of action films where family/father figures are important.

[Heartofice]

8 minutes ago, mormont said:

I'm just pointing out that what the filmmakers seem to be going for is an action movie whose leads happen to be female: not an action movie where specifically women kill specifically men.

Maybe they aren't explicitly going for that, but it still is 'good guys are women' , 'bad guys are men (patriarchy?)'.. women kill men (take that patriarchy!). I could give them the benefit of the doubt and say that this isn't ideologically driven as a trend, but then that just means that the ideas underpinning it are so deeply woven in to the makers way of thinking that they don't even spot the patterns they are creating.

12 minutes ago, mormont said:

Also, there is no implication in that trailer that the gender of the people the leads are killing actually matters.

As Ran says, the language used suggests that it is a factor, but also at a more subtle level, the entire make up of the 'good side' is female, and the 'bad side' is male. Its actually not subtle if I think about it.
 

4 minutes ago, Ran said:

I've never thought about it that way before. That's actually rather insightful, IMO, because crime statistics do show an extremely gendered difference in violent crime (men are some 4 times likelier to commit murder and violent crime globally, and are more likely to be the victims of violent crime in nearly every country in the world, per the UN).

Exactly this. But I think its maybe even more interesting if you consider that these movies, or culture in general seems to be saying that if women want to succeed in life then they need to take on all the very worst traits of men (or actually the cliched stereotypical view of men). So movies and tv tend to lionise the tough violent killers or the hard nosed business women.

If violence is a male domain, and statistically it really is, then why is there such a focus from Hollywood in particular to make sure women get their equal share of it? It's not like this movie in the trailer is a one off, it's part of a stream of movies which seem to be doing the same thing, and yet it doesn't seem like a lot of them are commercial successes either so what is driving it?

[Ran]

27 minutes ago, mormont said:

This is a bit of a stretch

The language (I didn't even note that the "bad things" line is implicitly suggestive of sexualized violence) and the fact that the heroes are all women, the person they're protecting is a girl, and the bad guys are all male isn't really enough? I don't think I'm the one stretching here regarding whether this trailer making it pretty clear where the lines are being drawn.

The film may make its *checks IMDB* three additional female characters baddies (though only one of them even merits a name, it seems), but I'm talking about what the trailer's messaging is, because that's what you remarked on.

@Heartofice

Quote

If violence is a male domain, and statistically it really is, then why is there such a focus from Hollywood in particular to make sure women get their equal share of it?

Mostly because Hollywood is often creatively bankrupt, and in turn because audiences are complacent. Like this film, it's a John Wick clone, no two ways about it, just with women kicking ass, and it's aimed at the same market while hoping to rope in more female viewers. That's genuinely the long and short of it for most of the movies that come out of Hollywood.

[Heartofice]

33 minutes ago, Ran said:

Mostly because Hollywood is often creatively bankrupt, and in turn because audiences are complacent. Like this film, it's a John Wick clone, no two ways about it, just with women kicking ass, and it's aimed at the same market while hoping to rope in more female viewers. That's genuinely the long and short of it for most of the movies that come out of Hollywood.

Sure, I think we can all agree on that. Hollywood sees what worked before and repeats until it stops working. That makes sense when looking at low budget action movies like John Wick. The questionable part is that they must be seeing some numbers somewhere that there is a huge market for ideologically driven violent female power fantasies. I'm not quite sure why they think there is such a strong demand for that genre, given the large numbers of these movies that keep getting made, and none of them being roaring successes. 

My guess is that pitching an idea for a movie that taps into the current desire of hollywood to prove it isn't a sexist swamp and disguises the history of sexual harassment and mistreatment  of women (while doing nothing about it in reality) is one way to get it made. It's virtue signalling in movie form.

Also I’d question whether this is actually a female power fantasy at all, or whether it’s a man’s idea of a female power fantasy based on what they think power fantasies are. 

[Veltigar]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

The language (I didn't even note that the "bad things" line is implicitly suggestive of sexualized violence) and the fact that the heroes are all women, the person they're protecting is a girl, and the bad guys are all male isn't really enough? I don't think I'm the one stretching here regarding whether this trailer making it pretty clear where the lines are being drawn.

The film may make its *checks IMDB* three additional female characters baddies (though only one of them even merits a name, it seems), but I'm talking about what the trailer's messaging is, because that's what you remarked on.

I'm glad I checked in so late this morning. Interesting discussion that has unfolded here. I totally agree with this analysis. The movie might turn out differently, but given what we see in the trailer it really is playing on gender tropes very strongly.

My two cents prediction based on the trailer (and this is a stretch given how little we see of the main narrative) is that this film is basically Charlies Angels ft. John Wick (or more appropriate Kingsman) with Giamatti's Charlie being the main villain.

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

As Ran says, the language used suggests that it is a factor, but also at a more subtle level, the entire make up of the 'good side' is female, and the 'bad side' is male. Its actually not subtle if I think about it.

This is actually one of two main reasons why the trailer makes me believe that this film is going to be a load of shit. The first is that the action looks generic (but then again we live in an age of superhero blockbusters), but the second more important factor is how cringe-inductively unsubtle this film plays its subtext.

Compare that to Fury Road for instance, where all the villains are men, almost all heroes (including the lead) are females who do amazingly brave stuff. The subtext is there and its far more powerful because they don't hammer you on the head with it.

It's a shame really because the idea of Charlie's Angels rebelling against him and taking back their independence could be a vehicle for the same type of subtle storytelling as in Fury Road. 

4 hours ago, Heartofice said:

It is funny that Hollywood’s main response to MeToo hasn’t been to make the sexes more equal across genres ( where is the wave of male led rom coms?) but to focus on pretending that women are as murderous and violent as men. 

I attended a lecture on the rise in importance of beauty ideals in the 20th and 21st century and there they made a similar point. Instead of reducing the focus on female beauty and releasing women from the tyranny of attending to their looks, the only thing that has been achieved so far is that men are now also being confronted with ever-increasing beauty standards and assorted problems. On these two particular issues it seems like we are strapped to a train during a race to the bottom. Luckily this is more the exception than the rule.

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

My guess is that pitching an idea for a movie that taps into the current desire of hollywood to prove it isn't a sexist swamp and disguises the history of sexual harassment and mistreatment  of women (while doing nothing about it in reality) is one way to get it made. It's virtue signalling in movie form.

Also I’d question whether this is actually a female power fantasy at all, or whether it’s a man’s idea of a female power fantasy based on what they think power fantasies are. 

Do we know who wrote and/or directed this? And with which gender they identify?

2 hours ago, Ran said:

Mostly because Hollywood is often creatively bankrupt, and in turn because audiences are complacent. Like this film, it's a John Wick clone, no two ways about it, just with women kicking ass, and it's aimed at the same market while hoping to rope in more female viewers. That's genuinely the long and short of it for most of the movies that come out of Hollywood.

Stylistically it does feel more like a Vaugn knock-off to me than John Wick. The action is too generic to be derived of John Wick  

[mormont]

2 hours ago, Ran said:

The language (I didn't even note that the "bad things" line is implicitly suggestive of sexualized violence) and the fact that the heroes are all women, the person they're protecting is a girl, and the bad guys are all male isn't really enough? I don't think I'm the one stretching here regarding whether this trailer making it pretty clear where the lines are being drawn.

Well, we're at the point (explicitly) where that line seems to be confused between 'these characters exist within and struggle against a patriarchal society' and 'this film is about women violently killing men (and that's boring)', which was HoI's original contention. If he is unable to see a clear line between those two things, I certainly can. And if he decides not to watch a fun action movie with an awesome cast because it offends him ideologically, fair enough. I'll watch it.