Mr_sausage wrote:Well, no one's denying that. My concern was that, compared with the new guy trend, it's both more fantastical and less moral. These kind of movies don't actively earn my ire; what does is the ignorant misconception that the guy version is a terrible new sexist trend. When I hear that I feel compelled to point out the older one and ask: is this preferable?
I gotcha, that's fair.
Mr_sausage wrote:I think if that were the case the movie would go out of its way to have the male accept the female as she is, in spite of the crones in the wings, and have him learn that trite lesson. Since it doesn't I'm not inclined to credit any such implication: these kinds of movies go for broad effects, and if what you say is true of the film's intent, one would expect it to have a dedicated scene rather than lie buried under a scene that seems to reinforce the importance of attire in getting positive appraisals of your character.
I'd only offer that she's only changed in superficial ways. If you're leaping social strata even the most amicable person is going to have to make some concessions in their behaviour and appearance if they don't want monocles popping out (in a bad way) every time they attend a dinner party. The glamour stuff does eat up a tremendous amount of screen time though, this is true.
Mr_sausage wrote:is has run its course, I'll offer a digital handshake for the interesting discussion and for putting up an excellent, well-considered counter-argument.
Returned. Kind of an unexpected debate but I enjoyed it. Here's hoping we meet again in a thread for the next big Julia Roberts hit... or, y'know, anything other than that.
