[Ocelot]

This is far, far too much media attention for a small corner of the internet criticising a Hollywood film. There's definitely another agenda at work here, and the timing of the articles reeks of collusion.

Perhaps we should be looking at all the people heavily involved in the making of this film, and its promotion, and contemplate why they've suddenly started perceiving us as a credible threat?

[CH-Toronto]

(05-15-2015 04:40 PM)Ocelot Wrote:  

This is far, far too much media attention for a small corner of the internet criticising a Hollywood film. There's definitely another agenda at work here, and the timing of the articles reeks of collusion.

Perhaps we should be looking at all the people heavily involved in the making of this film, and its promotion, and contemplate why they've suddenly started perceiving us as a credible threat?

I don't think the mainstream media seriously thinks much of this, however

Don't watch Mad Max because of feminism claim MRAs

makes for some good clickbait. And if drives more people to this site- then great.

[germanico]

I loved Mad Max as a kid and still going to watch this new movie it as soon as I can.

But I will enjoy it the same way I enjoy most of the shit that spews out of Hollywood: by shutting off my brain for 2 hours.

Quote:

far too much media attention for a small corner of the internet criticising a Hollywood film. There's definitely another agenda at work here, and the timing of the articles reeks of collusion.

All media IS an agenda. Everything you hear, see, or read on any kind of media, down to the last letter, was put there because someone wants you to think in a certain way.

[Ocelot]

(05-15-2015 05:02 PM)CH-Toronto Wrote:  

I don't think the mainstream media seriously thinks much of this, however

Don't watch Mad Max because of feminism claim MRAs

makes for some good clickbait. And if drives more people to this site- then great.

I'm sceptical - they know these aren't MRA sites, and they also know that the general public doesn't have a clue what an "MRA" is. If this was about clickbaiting with designated "hate groups", then such a slip would be akin to publishing the headline "KKK pickets soldiers funerals", when it was actually the Westboro Baptist Church. Except, in this case, nobody has heard of either group they're supposed to "hate". Hell, if they just wanted to clickbait, "Warrior Women Enrage Internet Misogynists" would have had broader appeal. This is not a mistake, so the question is what is the benefit in using the term "MRA" in their headlines?

Given that none of these journalists are authentic agents, working out what their true motives are is of primary importance if you want to correctly interpret what they're saying. My first instinct is that this could be an incidence of several interests being played off against eachother:

• Getting the dyed-hambeasts all worked up, ready to pay to see the film - more money being siphoned into sympathetic pockets.
• Have MRAs perhaps been making headway in the face of all the feminist blunders over the last year? Maybe they've decided it's time to take them more seriously and are making sure the first public conceptions of the groups is a negative one (most people still haven't heard of the MRM)?
• Our corner of the internet regularly nukes hamsters, and that emotional reaction can be harvested through clickbait articles, and redirected
  

I think we may be being used as a bait and switch.

(05-15-2015 05:05 PM)germanico Wrote:  

All media IS an agenda. Everything you hear, see, or read on any kind of media, down to the last letter, was put there because someone wants you to think in a certain way.

Yes, but what is the agenda in this instance? Sometimes the agenda is just "I'm a journalism major and need to eat", other times you have networks of people trying to proselytise the masses into their chosen ideology, or at least prep them to hate a common enemy. My gut tells me it's worth properly establishing qui bono in this instance. It could simply be a PR stunt, soley designed to whip up women into an emotional frenzy and make them watch what is, really, a film with limited feminine appeal. Time will tell.

[The Lizard of Oz]

The only issue I would take with Clarey's otherwise fine article is that he gives this disgusting film far too much credit. Clarey writes:

Quote:

The truth is I’m angry about the extents Hollywood and the director of Fury Road went to trick me and other men into seeing this movie. Everything VISUALLY looks amazing. It looks like that action guy flick we’ve desperately been waiting for where it is one man with principles, standing against many with none.

No -- nothing in this movie visually looks amazing. Indeed, it looks exactly like the piece of stillborn shit that it, in fact, is.

Here is a deadly exercise. First, watch the trailer for a truly great film -- the original Mad Max 2 / "Road Warrior" with Mel Gibson, from 1981:

Now, watch the trailer for this new atrocity, "Fury Road":

Let me count some of the differences between these two things; though really, the differences cannot be enumerated because they amount to a difference in kind. While it seems superficially like we are looking at two things which are of the same kind -- two action movies, that even share the same characters and plot lines -- in fact they are two totally different things that have very little in common with each other.

The original Mad Max -- even in the few excerpts you see in the trailer -- establishes a world of its own; it really does this in just one shot, any shot. It is a chaotic and confusing world but it has an intense coherence; it's all of a piece. The faces and the costumes have character; the cars and vehicles used look weird and cool; the scenes have an immediately obvious special chaotic flow; and most important of all, the star presence of Mel Gibson is intense and indubitable, it fills the screen and dominates all around it. That is what a great and strange action movie looks like.

Now look at the trailer for this new film. The very stock of the film, and its CGI palette, look dead -- and strangely, very cold even though they were trying for a warmish palette-- it's a complete failure. There is no world which has a coherent character, it all blurs and looks exactly like all the other movies of this kind that they make now. The technology looks sophisticated but I bet you won't remember any of the cars or other vehicles used; they don't adhere to the mind visually, it's all just a loud blur. And it's accompanied by the truly terrible, either sentimental/emo-whiney or excessively bombastic, music that they use to score films these days. Finally, it is completely obvious that neither of the main characters, either Theron or whoever plays Max, has any kind of star presence. They don't fill the screen, they have no radiance, they have nothing. The shot with Charlize on her knees "praying" is meant to have some pathos or power but it looks absurd and grotesque. The whole thing is just dead on arrival, it is as empty, unpleasant, and hollowed out as it could possibly be.

Why am I dwelling on all this? Because it's important. The fact that this film is a vehicle for deranged Year Zero propaganda about "sex slaves" and feminist "action heroes" is not somehow completely divorced from its visual aspects, from its palette, from how it's experienced as a movie. No -- these things are all of a piece. A film whose every shot and every frame is determined by a hectoring ideological agenda dies as a film because it has no freedom and no movement; it is rigid and overdetermined, it does not have the spark of life, inspiration and the saving randomness -- which, through the magic of art, becomes serendipity -- that suffuses films that are not so harshly constrained.

In other words, the rigid and implacable ideology that has taken over Hollywood -- and of which this film, if it can be called that, is but one product -- has everything to do with the fact that Hollywood is dead, has been dead for quite a while already, and the sort of thing it produces these days is something different in kind from the great, glorious and incomparable art that it produced in such staggering quantities in its long, but now defunct, golden age. There is no distinction to be made between the (ostensibly) purely visual aspects of something like the new "Mad Max" and its not-so-hidden ideological agenda. It is all of a piece, and the piece is rotten to the core and ready to crumble to the touch like a nasty, charmless, and excessively fast-moving zombie in an unwatchable contemporary horror film.

[germanico]

Quote:

A film whose every shot and every frame is determined by a hectoring ideological agenda dies as a film because it has no freedom and no movement; it is rigid and overdetermined, it does not have the spark of life, inspiration and the saving randomness -- which, through the magic of art, becomes serendipity -- that suffuses films that are not so harshly constrained.

The definition of every Hollywood blockbuster from the last 10-15 years. (Perhaps more)

I just watched the Robocop remake a few days ago on cable. I loved the original films back in the day (al least the first 2) and was dissapointed of how soulless and plotless was this new film.

The original was a piece of art, an statement, a satire of the corporate ruthlessness of the eighties. The film accomplished the feat of creating a world of its own, suspending your own reality and transporting the spectator to this other world similar to our own from the first couple minutes, down to the news casts and the fake commercials.

The new one was an utter piece of crap. No message, no soul, nothing. A vehicle for Samuel L Jackson next paycheck. They sucked every bit of character from the very human story of a tortured soul struggle to retain his remaining humanity, and turned it into 2 hours of disconnected, empty scenes.

Ill still plan on watching the new Mad Max. Im sure it will be crap, but at least it will feature some post apocaliptical souped up cars.

I just hope they didnt use CGI cars or I will walk out.

[Hotwheels]

(05-15-2015 05:05 PM)germanico Wrote:  

I loved Mad Max as a kid and still going to watch this new movie it as soon as I can.

But I will enjoy it the same way I enjoy most of the shit that spews out of Hollywood: by shutting off my brain for 2 hours.

I simply cannot enjoy a movie with a masculine female lead. It just is too far from reality for me I guess.

[El Chinito loco]

I saw this yesterday before reading any of the articles on here and i'm afraid to say that it does contain a lot of feminist propaganda. The survivor womyn Mad Max is in encounters a biker tribe of old ladies.. literally 60+ year old grannies in the middle of a radioactive desert wasteland. There's no real explanation as to how they survived all on their own or anything. You're just supposed to assume that they are these complete badasses.

It's a shame because the action in this is pretty good otherwise and the cinematogrophy is stunning.

The only pro with this is that the women aren't going around kicking ass for the most part. Most end up getting mangled and destroyed in various realistic ways which is quite unlike the female heroes in various action films who roundhouse kick linebackers in the face and walk away without a scratch.


I'm going to go ahead and spoil one part..









One of the two men actually sacrifices himself for the womyn for ~love in one severe blue pill scene.

[Easy_C]

(05-15-2015 02:09 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

Excellent work on more publicity. Its also funny that out of all of the articles on ROK...the one that talks about a movie...a fictional story...is getting the most press. You would think that knowing that the nefarious leader of the international fat shaming movement is still on the loose, lurking in the shadows of the internet, would be more troubling than what is essentially a negative movie review.

Its like how 'deflate gate' is all over the news. Thats not news, its a game.

"fat shaming" in the abstract is just that: abstract.

Calling for a boycott of a movie creates very real negative publicity that is both a threat and an opportunity for the studio at the same time.

[CJ_W]

(05-15-2015 11:29 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

Vice: http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/this-guy-...minism-514

I find it funny that Vice is bashing you, seeing that their founder "McCinnis" told a chick on TV that she'd be better off at home with kids and a husband rather than being a harpy on TV lol. . .yeah I know that founders and owners of companies don't really bring their philosophies to the front but still, its kind of ironic.

(05-15-2015 11:33 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

There's a bit of Twitter anger:

https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=...m&src=typd

"Chris Barrett ‏@selga55 2h2 hours ago
Had no idea something like #ReturnofKings actually existed Holy fuck"

Dude is Fat with a Fedora. . .wow.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(05-15-2015 06:48 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

I saw this yesterday before reading any of the articles on here and i'm afraid to say that it does contain a lot of feminist propaganda. The survivor womyn Mad Max is in encounters a biker tribe of old ladies.. literally 60+ year old grannies in the middle of a radioactive desert wasteland. There's no real explanation as to how they survived all on their own or anything. You're just supposed to assume that they are these complete badasses.

Back in the 1970s Monty Python had a sketch about the Hell's Grannies who terrorized the neighborhood:



But I guess now feminism has empowered women so much, that this is an absolutely realistic view:



60+ women unless very well-nourished, supplemented or in supreme state - are incredibly fragile and weak. Assuming their solitary survival in a Mad Max world is utterly nutty - the reality would look more like this:

[AnonymousBosch]

Building on Lizard's digression, I wouldn't have seen this film either way, feminism or not. I recognise that modern movies are very rarely made for me.

I haven't been the to cinema since 2011. Now and then I'll try and watch a film, but usually wander off 20 minutes in. Yeah, there's uncharismatic actors, bad writing, barely-comprehensible action and a focus on a immature mindset, but there's something else.

Movies are miserablist and anti-life. I noticed this starting in the mid 00's when I'd go to a chick flick with a girlfriend and wonder why we were supposed to find two arseholes falling in love was 'romantic'. If you could compensate with great acting or a great script, then yeah, I can watch something 'gritty', but without both? Who the hell would go to Mad Max, knowing it was entertainment written by a Radfem? Have you ever heard anything entertaining out of their mouths?

Movies are shit. No-one acts like actual human beings, and modern films and TV lack genuine empathy for community and human beings. I'm not even sure if they understand what the human condition is. This is the anti-life, anti-hope cynical attitude of the progressives, and it poisons everything, even the films they make for families or espousing compassion and community. They don't believe in anything: country, beauty, heroes. Everything is just something to snark at, feel morally-superior to or be suspicious of.

They're incapable of joyous creation and they're incapable of entertaining without putting their depressive outlook into it.

My nephew used to watch a cartoon called 'Adventure Time'. I mentioned it to him a few months back, and he said he didn't watch it anymore: "It makes me sad."

I asked my sister, and she said: "I wouldn't let watch it any more. It got weird."

"How so?"

"It used to be the adventures of a boy and his dog, then Hipsters started watching it, and the makers started aiming it at them. Now it's full of creepy sexual messages, and... it's just really depressing."

"Sort of cynical and hopeless?"

"The boy's father abandons him and comes back and doesn't care for him, and now [my nephew] gets really distressed that [his father] might do it, and I have to keep explaining to him it's ok."

She says she didn't understand what had happened, and how it used to be a full, brightly-coloured show. I'm guessing the creators are twenty-something hipsters, and once they realised an audience of depressive, deviant-sexuality Tumblrtards had overlaid their creepy sexual feelings over - as usual - children's entertainment, they threw the child audience under the bus to have their egos stroked about how they're Really Making Art. See also: video games.

Just checked, the creator, creeping me the fuck out. Would you leave your child alone with this man?



(Further creepiness: child sexualiser Lena Dunham does a voice on his show. Did she want a 'cool' tool to groom young girls with, the way Michael Jackson would be photographed with ET, or pretend he was really a Transformer? Interesting).

This is part of a trend I've noticed for twenty-somethings to fetishise the innocent joys of their childhood, refuse to let them go, then demand darkness and grittiness from those same things in the next generation, thereby withholding innocence and joy from those children.

Which is how you get from something as innocent and goofy as this:





to something as Anti-Life and Anti-Joy as this:





Fast forward a couple of weeks to yesterday, and something happened with my nephew. She was very mysterious and evasive when pressed exactly what, but she's convinced it's movie and video game related, and, as such, has banned both from the house.

Not just for him, for her too. At least she isn't a hypocrite about it.

My sister and I discussed it. I mentioned how I was finding most entertainment depressing and could barely-recognise characters as human beings anymore, so didn't want much in the way of movies or tv anymore.

My sisters eyes lit up: "I thought it was just me! What is wrong with them all?"

She explained how, lately, the shows she used to watch just are really dark and negative, and, in the children's stuff, it's always that the children know better than adults, and that rudeness and disrespect is encouraged.

I talked about narcissism and violence, and how my mother had noticed Showtime shows were sneaking child sexualisation into them in shows like 'Weeds' and 'Shameless', and gradually lost all interest in television and movies, saying "Life was too short," (and in her case, it was).

I said to my sister "Given the choice, I'd rather go read a book, or go exercise, or write a song".

She nodded. "I love playing board games with him, or going out to feed the chickens. Movies make him weird. They put all these... messages in."

My ears really pricked up now, and when pressed, she said: "Anti-family; Connections between people should only exist by what use they can offer you; Buy things to be happy; Pretend you're a rebel who doesn't listen to authority but never, ever think for yourself."



In that moment, I learnt how awake my sister was, which is what happens to women who have formed resilience through hardship, her character supported by 20 years of a stable marriage to a dominant masculine man, and having children training her to stop focusing on herself.

I'm still in shock.

We talked more about video games, and she said how he'd been saying that that since the Wii wasn't having games made for it any more he wanted an Xbox, but....

I stated the problem before she did: "There's no real games for kids."

She nodded. "Not like the Wii. Everything's M or MA rated. They're so violent. The messages are violent and creepy." She talked about the Car Park Mafia at her school handwringing over this lately. Apparently they all watched the CSI episode, and now are scared what video games might do to their children. Great job, Polygon, who stupidly think the non-Elite mass of parents want their children to grow up with defective sexualities.



This is when I jumped in about Gamergate, and pointed out exactly what they were trying to introduce into games, and she looked very worried.

You have to understand due to his autism, my nephew very much imitates what he sees.

Look, I love my sister, but she's much more mainstream in her opinions than I am. So, it's fascinating to discover a 'normal' woman like her is noticing that something is going on. If that's happening, the Narrative is in trouble, as this huge overreaction by the media suggests.

Interestingly also, a friend of hers was there during the conversation. She's a Mundane I've always found damn boring, because she has no real opinions of her own, and, as such, her personality is in constant flux based upon the dominant peers in her immediate group.

Hearing the passionate discussion between my sister and I, she aped our opinions: she'd 'noticed' too. The narrative isn't fought by being dogmatic and miserablist - that's all the current media structures can offer anyone - it's fought with charisma, passion and the vitality for life.

[RawGod]

Damn, AB brings it yet again. In a saner world they'd be flinging money at you to have your own TV show where you dispense tough love. Then you'd let it go to your head and start banging the make-up girls.

[philosophical_recovery]

I'm glad I checked this thread today, as Lizard and AB just threw down the missing pieces of what I've been thinking lately:

I've let a lot of this negative shit rub off on me. It's not nearly as bad as it used to be, but you can see it in some of my posts here. It's hard to see a complete view of something standing right in your face, but it's making more sense now.

I'm in my 30s and I noticed how rude the younger generation (20s or younger now) when I met them growing up in social circles. I noticed my own negative behavior as a self protection mechanism, or maybe just bad ethics, experiencing some bad things without a good perspective.

The film clip, as Lizard identified, is swimming in the zeitgeist I've seen most of my life. Aside from identifying it as CG trash, I couldn't finger exactly what else I thought was off. Thank you, that helped. I needed the direct side by side and comparison.

But, what I saw was the hero: mad max happily saving those in need from the original. The behaviors of myself and most of the people I know trending more towards anti heros: doing things just to try to create a bulwark against the damage, but inevitably dragging others down a painful road.

I've got to think on this more, and you might laugh, but I've been reading an old book by Tony Robbins and one thing that sticks out is his identification of setting your own standards. This reminds me of that. Do you want to be a hero or an anti hero. Do you have any standards worth living for? What is the virtue that you want to bring?

That's what I've been thinking, lately. It's easy to follow the wave and join in the picking apart of society like a vulture until there's no carrion left. Mad Max remembered the beautiful family he once had, and was trying to save the rest to the best of his ability. He wanted it to stop.

I want it to stop.

I can't do it if I continue to focus on the negative. My standard for that behavior is too low.

[JohnKreese]

Foolsgold commented on it earlier, but I want to simplify the major points regarding comparisons made between Mad Max (downgrade edition) female lead and "Alien" and "Terminator".

"Alien" - This isn't an action/adventure flick. Sure, the sequels, as they got shittier and shittier fit this bill, but the original...no. "Alien "is a a slasher film that happens to take place in outer space. The neighborhood, campground, train, and every other scenario was played out so "Alien" took the early 80s, tired theme to outer space. If we're to say that Ripley (in the first movie) is a "strong, female lead" then the same goes for every B-movie actress who has abstained from sex, drinking, and drugs long enough (remember the rules!!!) to defeat the killer at the end. So now Charlize Theron is Jamie Lee Curtis and Neve Campbell. Hurrah.

"Terminator" - Have any of these people seen the first movie? Sarah Connor is the epitome of the "damsel in distress" archetype. Sure, T2 (what, 7 years later?) has her hardened from years in the mental institution, but even then, she gets smacked around and assaulted by male orderlies to the degree that is....I don't know...expected when considering strength disparities between men and women (I guess the one guy uses a club or something). Ultimately, even that Skynet guy's kid isn't scared of her!

The point is, the comparisons made (I won't even go into "Tank Girl". Awful movie/spoof) display a lack of even basic knowledge of the films, and more importantly the characters being likened to.

[vinman]

(05-15-2015 07:50 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

Building on Lizard's digression, I wouldn't have seen this film either way, feminism or not. I recognise that modern movies are very rarely made for me.

I haven't been the to cinema since 2011. Now and then I'll try and watch a film, but usually wander off 20 minutes in. Yeah, there's uncharismatic actors, bad writing, barely-comprehensible action and a focus on a immature mindset, but there's something else.

Movies are miserablist and anti-life. I noticed this starting in the mid 00's when I'd go to a chick flick with a girlfriend and wonder why we were supposed to find two arseholes falling in love was 'romantic'. If you could compensate with great acting or a great script, then yeah, I can watch something 'gritty', but without both? Who the hell would go to Mad Max, knowing it was entertainment written by a Radfem? Have you ever heard anything entertaining out of their mouths?

Movies are shit. No-one acts like actual human beings, and modern films and TV lack genuine empathy for community and human beings. I'm not even sure if they understand what the human condition is. This is the anti-life, anti-hope cynical attitude of the progressives, and it poisons everything, even the films they make for families or espousing compassion and community. They don't believe in anything: country, beauty, heroes. Everything is just something to snark at, feel morally-superior to or be suspicious of.

They're incapable of joyous creation and they're incapable of entertaining without putting their depressive outlook into it.

My nephew used to watch a cartoon called 'Adventure Time'. I mentioned it to him a few months back, and he said he didn't watch it anymore: "It makes me sad."

I asked my sister, and she said: "I wouldn't let watch it any more. It got weird."

"How so?"

"It used to be the adventures of a boy and his dog, then Hipsters started watching it, and the makers started aiming it at them. Now it's full of creepy sexual messages, and... it's just really depressing."

"Sort of cynical and hopeless?"

"The boy's father abandons him and comes back and doesn't care for him, and now [my nephew] gets really distressed that [his father] might do it, and I have to keep explaining to him it's ok."

She says she didn't understand what had happened, and how it used to be a full, brightly-coloured show. I'm guessing the creators are twenty-something hipsters, and once they realised an audience of depressive, deviant-sexuality Tumblrtards had overlaid their creepy sexual feelings over - as usual - children's entertainment, they threw the child audience under the bus to have their egos stroked about how they're Really Making Art. See also: video games.

Just checked, the creator, creeping me the fuck out. Would you leave your child alone with this man?



(Further creepiness: child sexualiser Lena Dunham does a voice on his show. Did she want a 'cool' tool to groom young girls with, the way Michael Jackson would be photographed with ET, or pretend he was really a Transformer? Interesting).

This is part of a trend I've noticed for twenty-somethings to fetishise the innocent joys of their childhood, refuse to let them go, then demand darkness and grittiness from those same things in the next generation, thereby withholding innocence and joy from those children.

Which is how you get from something as innocent and goofy as this:





to something as Anti-Life and Anti-Joy as this:





Fast forward a couple of weeks to yesterday, and something happened with my nephew. She was very mysterious and evasive when pressed exactly what, but she's convinced it's movie and video game related, and, as such, has banned both from the house.

Not just for him, for her too. At least she isn't a hypocrite about it.

My sister and I discussed it. I mentioned how I was finding most entertainment depressing and could barely-recognise characters as human beings anymore, so didn't want much in the way of movies or tv anymore.

My sisters eyes lit up: "I thought it was just me! What is wrong with them all?"

She explained how, lately, the shows she used to watch just are really dark and negative, and, in the children's stuff, it's always that the children know better than adults, and that rudeness and disrespect is encouraged.

I talked about narcissism and violence, and how my mother had noticed Showtime shows were sneaking child sexualisation into them in shows like 'Weeds' and 'Shameless', and gradually lost all interest in television and movies, saying "Life was too short," (and in her case, it was).

I said to my sister "Given the choice, I'd rather go read a book, or go exercise, or write a song".

She nodded. "I love playing board games with him, or going out to feed the chickens. Movies make him weird. They put all these... messages in."

My ears really pricked up now, and when pressed, she said: "Anti-family; Connections between people should only exist by what use they can offer you; Buy things to be happy; Pretend you're a rebel who doesn't listen to authority but never, ever think for yourself."



In that moment, I learnt how awake my sister was, which is what happens to women who have formed resilience through hardship, her character supported by 20 years of a stable marriage to a dominant masculine man, and having children training her to stop focusing on herself.

I'm still in shock.

We talked more about video games, and she said how he'd been saying that that since the Wii wasn't having games made for it any more he wanted an Xbox, but....

I stated the problem before she did: "There's no real games for kids."

She nodded. "Not like the Wii. Everything's M or MA rated. They're so violent. The messages are violent and creepy." She talked about the Car Park Mafia at her school handwringing over this lately. Apparently they all watched the CSI episode, and now are scared what video games might do to their children. Great job, Polygon, who stupidly think the non-Elite mass of parents want their children to grow up with defective sexualities.



This is when I jumped in about Gamergate, and pointed out exactly what they were trying to introduce into games, and she looked very worried.

You have to understand due to his autism, my nephew very much imitates what he sees.

Look, I love my sister, but she's much more mainstream in her opinions than I am. So, it's fascinating to discover a 'normal' woman like her is noticing that something is going on. If that's happening, the Narrative is in trouble, as this huge overreaction by the media suggests.

Interestingly also, a friend of hers was there during the conversation. She's a Mundane I've always found damn boring, because she has no real opinions of her own, and, as such, her personality is in constant flux based upon the dominant peers in her immediate group.

Hearing the passionate discussion between my sister and I, she aped our opinions: she'd 'noticed' too. The narrative isn't fought by being dogmatic and miserablist - that's all the current media structures can offer anyone - it's fought with charisma, passion and the vitality for life.

FUCKING BOSCH!!!

I read his post and was moved.
   

[germanico]

(05-15-2015 07:50 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

This is when I jumped in about Gamergate, and pointed out exactly what they were trying to introduce into games, and she looked very worried.

I havent read about Gamergate on purpose, except for what has been discussed in passing in the threads not related to it on this forum, but heres what I get from it:

Gamergate is about feminists demanding that all games made from now on somehow be about non-violent depictions of female and transgender characters, while their opossition enjoys games the way they have been done so far.

Gamergate programmers: we want everybody to play our games because they where programmed by women and gays. Also, they are about my experiences being a cisgender demiplatonic polyamorous tortoise back in college.

Regular programmes: We hope that everyone enjoys playing our games because they are good. If not, we will try to make them better next time. They are about fun, interesting topics that many gamers can relate to.

Did I got it right?

[Broady]

I think the greatness of the original Mad Max was that Max seemed real (excellent work by Mel Gibson). The cars and bikes were real. The violence, fear and desperation felt real. There were even females involved in the battle (the chic that got shot with the arrows on the truck), but it was all held together by Max and the sense that you wanted him to win.

Now we have Charlize Theron with a silly robot arm and a lot of stunts etc. I don't even know the guy that plays Max now - he's not the real Max. He doesn't have the same anger, desperation, sadness and guts that Max had.

Imagine if Hollywood made a remake of Once Were Warriors (it's a great film from New Zealand starring Temuera Morrison) and they cast Charlize Theron with a silly robot arm to be the star. It just wouldn't work.

The original Max, and also Jake from Once Were Warriors, are troubled men who have no problem with violence but they have a sense of honour, at least a shred of compassion and they can kick arse when they have to.

Sure, Max and Jake are just movie characters. But they seem like they could be real men.

That's the difference. The new Max and Charlize don't seem real.

[Barry Scrotada]

(05-15-2015 04:40 PM)Ocelot Wrote:  

This is far, far too much media attention for a small corner of the internet criticising a Hollywood film. There's definitely another agenda at work here, and the timing of the articles reeks of collusion.

This film is distributed by WB. WB and CNN are both owned by Time Warner. Seems like cross-promotion business as usual to me, with articles on the ROK review adding more bricks to the publicity pyramid.

[Sonsowey]

Just saw this movie.

Of course there are women, old women at that fighting and winning against insurmountable odds. And Charlize Theron is the protagonist Max is just a foil character.

But the most interesting thing was really the first few minutes and the last.

Max is introduced and promptly captured by a band of raiders for a large organized society.

We see he is held captive by the warriors, all painted in white body paint. Where they are operating is atop a large sheer cliff, with the scrounging desperate commoners living below.

The warriors are ruled by some sort of king who we see preparing to address the masses. He is very old and out of shape. He dons a suit of plastic armor and a life-preserving machinery with an intimidating mask, and goes out atop this sheer cliff to address the masses like he were some dark Pope.

He tells them they are setting out a raiding party to go raid gasoline and bullets from other local groups who produce them. Charlize Theron is the leader of the raiding party, driving the "war rig". All the other warriors, men, are following her lead. No explanation is given as to why she is in charge.

He proclaims himself the path out of their hellish situation, says some self-aggrandizing stuff, and then pulls some levers and floodgates of water open up. The commoners are ready with buckets, it seems like every time he speaks he blesses the commoners with a waterfall. He says not to become addicted to water, and quickly shuts it off as they fight for the drops available.

He leaves his platform and walks back into what we could call the "royal chamber". In panorama, we see atop these sheer cliffs, there is greenery and there are windmills operating. Inside the chambers shut off to the commoners up high, there is agriculture and sprinklers, more green. He walks past a row of obese lactating women with pumps attached to their breasts being treated as cattle, the only obese people in the film. A soldier tries some milk for him and proclaims it to be good, and drinks.

He goes into his quarters and is shocked to see basically feminist graffiti everywhere. "We are not things" "Our sons will not be warlords". His harem has escaped in some feminist plot.

Charlize Theron's raiding party takes a detour. The warriors are confused, why are they not attacking the place they meant to attack? She keeps them in the dark as long as she can, but eventually the King realizes and sends the rest of his warriors out after her. She has taken the "breeders", beautiful young women, to escape.

From here it's just road warfare pretty ridiculous stuff honestly.

She means to take them to "the green place", where she grew up, somewhere with agriculture. She was kidnapped from there by a raiding party of this king as a child. How she went from bounty of war to military commander is never even hinted at.

Eventually she finds the women of the "green place" except it is no more, they are old desert nomad women now. They decide to all go back and take over the society they left behind, since the entire armed force of the King has been dispatched just to fetch back a handful of cute young girls.

Somehow they are able to race back, fend off this King's entire army, kill the King in the process, and roll into his civilization, toss his body off their "war rig" and be applauded by the commoners.

Immediately, everyone views them as heros, and the women are hoisted up to the heights from which the King gave his speech earlier. Max doesn't go, he walks away not wanting anything out of it, seeing Charlize Theron and a bunch of grandmas and the "breeders" being lifted up to the heights of the King.

The final scene shows the obese cattle-women opening the floodgates full blast to give everyone water.

I couldn't help but think that they were about to run out of all their water! This guy had developed a society where they had agriculture, water, and an organized military and the bitches are just opening the fire hydrant and letting it run like it's nothing! Fitting that it's the obese women doing this.

Very silly movie really. The original Mad Max featured humanesque feats. In this movie basically everyone is a super-hero. The nonstop wild highway warfare is pretty cartoonish really. And of course, grandmas are proven to be among the elite warriors of the world.

Throughout their journey, there was one of the "breeders" who mentioned she wanted to go back. She had left a life of relative luxury, for what? She had water and vegetation and was protected from the commoners, and her only charge was to bear the king offspring. Now she was on the road having to fight off every bandit that came by.

The other girls didn't let her go back with the slogans they spraypainted. "We are not things" "Our sons will not be warlords"

Seems pretty legit honestly, to have your son be a warlord in that kinda environment. Especially a warlord who could figure out how to tap into ground-water reserves and maintain them in such an arid climate.

Oh well. Girlpower.

[AnonymousBosch]

One more little 'Anti-Life / Anti Humanity' observation:

Hollywood doesn't even understand male sexuality:

- They pair 37 year old Hardy, not with an early 20-something beauty a man of his physicality and social status could get, but a woman two years older than him.

- They take this woman and shave off all her hair - a signifier of health and a sexual attractor for men.



- Then repeatedly masculinise her behaviour so all the men in the audience realise she is their equal, and not feminine and submissive, two more sexual attractors for straight men.

- They then make up her head in manner that makes her look exactly like a patient undergoing radiation treatment for a severe brain tumour, a look I'm - unfortunately - very familiar with.



(This very much resembles early stage therapy: give her a few weeks of steroidal drugs and the face would start to swell and bloat).

- Then base the marketing around the belief that this walking male corpse is sexually-attractive to men.

Anti-life.

[Lizard King]

(05-15-2015 07:35 PM)CJ_W Wrote:  

I find it funny that Vice is bashing you, seeing that their founder "McCinnis" told a chick on TV that she'd be better off at home with kids and a husband rather than being a harpy on TV lol. . .yeah I know that founders and owners of companies don't really bring their philosophies to the front but still, its kind of ironic.

Vice is mainstream now.

It used to have good journalism on interesting topics. Now it's clickbait and propaganda.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(05-15-2015 07:50 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

"It used to be the adventures of a boy and his dog, then Hipsters started watching it, and the makers started aiming it at them. Now it's full of creepy sexual messages, and... it's just really depressing."

"Sort of cynical and hopeless?"

"The boy's father abandons him and comes back and doesn't care for him, and now [my nephew] gets really distressed that [his father] might do it, and I have to keep explaining to him it's ok."

Not to derail the thread, but I had a couple posts stating that modern children cartoons and movies are extremely negative on certain lines - especially the abandonment theme - separation of parents is strong:

In "How to Train a Dragon 2" they slaughter the cool burly manly father for no reason at all - does not help the story, but I read in the comments that children cried during the scene and as I saw it I was shocked.



In "Big Hero 6" the kill off the only remaining blood-relative of the main protagonist - his cool brother:



He is raised as is the social goal I guess by a single mother. I personally would not let my children watch any of that crap without first having assessed that. No TV and even the internet has to be limited and monitored, because you can get almost anything there as well.

[RedPillUK]

This bothers me for a different reason to those already mentioned.

These journalists and websites are professional, and yet all they do is copy each other and they don't even bother to do research.

After reading the different manosphere blogs and the rooshv forum for a few hours a day for the last 9 months, I've gotten used to a certain writing quality, with lots of deep thought and insight.

Sometimes articles from jezebel or somewhere are linked here, and its so badly written it's laughable, but what should you expect from feminist typists?

But now I see this awful writing in the guardian, telegraph, huffpost etc. Not just the message, but the fact they create these long rambling opinion articles without a point but full of snark. Almost all of them are like that. They always suddenly end, it never reaches a conclusion. It is really difficult to read.

The author never has much to add but "The reason you shouldn't watch Mad Max is .. wait for it... feminism. can you believe these guys?? wow!"

Even the news articles are normally just a copy and paste job, that anyone could do. Sometimes I think software is writing their articles. I haven't seen anything on a mainstream website recently that could not be written better by some of the top writers here. Don't get me wrong I've seen some childish writing on RoK but overall its a much higher standard than these mainstream sites.

In my blue pill days, I just assumed professional journalists and writers to be of MUCH higher quality than amateur bloggers and I didn't pay much attention. Now I realise they're a bunch of hacks who get told what to write for a living and as a result churn out shitty disjointed 'opinion' articles and cut and paste news stories

[RedPillUK]

I just read Roosh's article again and he said it perfectly at the end:

"In the end, I wanted to thank all the talentless media typists for taking the time to spread the word about our message. I have no doubt that many men are relieved to have encountered it."