Current Events > What do you think of The Critical Drinker and Eric July?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Why is it masculine to add complexity to a character, instead of just sexy?

His direct quote is, "What is appealing is grace, elegance, agility, and sensuality" as far as traditional action women go. And when speaking on physical attractiveness, he mentions that both women AND men are designed/chosen to appeal to the audience's carnal delights.

If a woman is written in a shallow, pandery "girls get it done" way and someone calls that out, it's fair game. Characters like Ripley, Conner, Mulan (animated version), etc. do not suffer from this.

No, it does not. Grace, elegance, and agility have nothing to do with sexuality.

If a woman is written in a shallow, pandery "girls get it done" way and someone calls that out, it's fair game.

Yeah, so basically he's bashing ScarJo for wanting the character to be more than his own shallow and superficial interpretation of her. Gotcha.

He didn't bash her. He said that her assessment of the character was unfair.

Example of characters that do "suffer from this"?

And reasons why the three you named don't fall under that umbrella?

You omitted one very damning word from that list.

Also consider that the entire list -- and you did say it was a "direct quote", therefore a complete list of what he calls "appealing traits" -- highlights traits that are viewed as classy or physically attractive, and deliberately omits traits such as strength, determination, intelligence, independence, and courage, among a litany of others.

Meaning that in his opinion (which you seem to enthusiastically agree with), a female character is only written in an appealing way if they're elegant and sensual with no other traits. Or, in other words, a sex object.

Netflix's She-Hulk, Rey, 2020's Mulan, etc..

Because they're compelling, nuanced characters who actually have interesting arcs?

And the problem with his entire point is the implication that being feminine means being sexually appealing (to him)

Quick question: if scenes like this are "pandery", are movies like Joker also not pandery based off of their very premise? I.e., a poor white guy with a disability gets revenge on society through extreme violence?

Why does TCD only feel the need to point out certain kinds of pandering and not others?

No, that's just your weird politically charged way of framing the movie. Joker is one of the most popular villains of all time, known for being a complete lunatic. A story exploring his often ambiguous origin and how he became insane is fascinating by its very nature. There's nothing pandery about it.

Okay, now why are they "bad" female characters?

Okay, now why are they "bad" female characters?

How about actual answers instead of vague buzzwords?

No, that's just your weird politically charged way of framing the movie.

Again, shown by his reverence for characters like Ripley, Conner, Princess Leia, Samantha Carter, and others.

It's literally incel pandering

This topic is starting to make a lot more sense now

I just watched the video.

I don't see anything wrong with his main message. He points out that Black Widow, like all superheroes, are fantastical characters whose physical attractiveness adds to their appeal. He thinks SJ's assessment of the character is somewhat unfair and convenient. He thinks women generally offer different strengths that should be played up, instead of just making women more masculine.

I think that's all agreeable stuff. I do agree that his assessment of SJ's acting history was pretty inexcusably ignorant, though, and him claiming she rambled in her quote was forced.

Because they're poorly written.

"Compelling", "nuanced", and "interesting" are buzzwords? Good lord, what's happened to our education system.

Again, this is the same crop of characters that always get cherry-picked whenever these chuds want to present the narrative that writing for female characters was better before Hollywood became "woke".

But yet he fails to make a coherent argument for how those characters were better written

The average person outside the web doesn't even know what incel means.

"Compelling", "nuanced", and "interesting" are buzzwords? Good lord, what's happened to our education system.

https://youtu.be/xPE7-PRL0M8

There ya go. An entire video proving that he does, in fact, make a coherent argument for how those characters were better written.

Isn't Critical Drinker the chud who has a video saying that the reason movies "suck now" is because female characters aren't all exclusively love interests or damsels-in-distress anymore?

He is a bit sexist (The man loves tits) but having seen quite a few of his videos his main problem with modern female heroines is that they are often flawless, combative, boring.

Nobody said adding complexity to a female character is masculine, nor has anyone said that sexiness is all that matters in a female action chick.

That's literally a barebones synopsis of the plot...

And yet instead of framing it for what it essentially is (an exploration of Joker's expectedly dark past and what led to him losing his mind), you choose "a poor white guy with a disability gets revenge on society through extreme violence?"

Joker's whiteness doesn't even have anything to do with the plot. People like you are just obsessed with viewing everything from a political angle.

And yet instead of framing it for what it essentially is (an exploration of Joker's expectedly dark past and what led to him losing his mind), you choose "a poor white guy with a disability gets revenge on society through extreme violence?"

Joker's whiteness isn't even relevant to the story. People like you are just obsessed with viewing everything from a political angle.

If you remove the "white" part

But that's the point: You felt it was appropriate to bring that up precisely BECAUSE you can't escape your political slant. That's like describing a Bugs Bunny cartoon as "privileged, entitled white man seeks self-validation through disregard for the safety of wildlife". It's just such a sad, unnatural way to look at this stuff.

But that's the point: You felt it was appropriate to bring that up precisely BECAUSE you can't escape your political slant. That's like describing a Bugs Bunny cartoon as "privileged, entitled white man seeks self-validation through disregard for the safety of wildlife". It's just such a sad, unnatural way to look at this stuff.

The director literally intended the movie to be social commentary on how the system fails people:

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/06/793336776/the-system-s-broken-and-joker-director-aimed-to-explore-that-on-screen

His whiteness may not be relevant to the story, but his whiteness did make it easier for white guys to relate to the movie's messaging.

But that's exactly what The Critical Drinker does when he accuses every modern movie with a strong female protagonist of being "pandery".

Would love to hear reasons as to why you do or don't like them.

Why? You didn't present any one why they "rock."

They both give excellent critiques on modern media.

Nope.

They both give excellent critiques on modern media.

This is just a textbook example of obsessing over race. Anyone who's been through similar shit as The Joker would be able to relate to him on some level, and even if you haven't, he's meant to garner pity because he's a sympathetic character.