criterionforum.org

There would be 0.0% controversy over a "Zero Dark Thirty is about how men never listen!" joke. As there shouldn't be. These are such mild Borscht-belt jokes... I can't believe this is even a discussion.

This country has so many problems involving gender discrimination... This is like walking into a home that needs dozens of major repairs and focusing a week's worth of attention on one crooked nail.

Mr. Sausage wrote:This joke does not require that you think Zero Dark Thirty is about how girls can't let go, or that you believe that that's actually true about girls.

Well, I don't know ... the joke certainly works if you "believe that's actually true about girls", even if it doesn't require it. And it simply makes no sense either way unless you give some credence to the stereotype. I think it's on much dodgier ground than the "We Saw Your Boobs" number, which as constructed was all about what a schmuck MacFarlane is, and I don't think you can brush it aside by saying that the stereotype is beside the point. Without the stereotype, there's no punchline at all. I can believe that it doesn't necessarily have to be that way, but the way the actual joke is actually constructed, the stereotype is the focus.

mfunk9786 wrote:There would be 0.0% controversy over a "Zero Dark Thirty is about how men never listen!" joke.

That's pretty much what the movie is about, actually.

And it's about how women never let anything go.

Brian C wrote:Well, I don't know ... the joke certainly works if you "believe that's actually true about girls", even if it doesn't require it. And it simply makes no sense either way unless you give some credence to the stereotype. I think it's on much dodgier ground that the "We Saw Your Boobs" number, which as constructed was all about what a schmuck MacFarlane is, and I don't think you can brush it aside by saying that the stereotype is beside the point. Without the stereotype, there's no punchline at all. I can believe that it doesn't necessarily have to be that way, but the way the actual joke is actually constructed, the stereotype is the focus.

Well I'm happy to see that most of this is a straw man, so it doesn't need to be refuted. Although I am confused about how you took a post that said the joke was about "the absurd comparison between two seemingly unrelated things" and thought it meant that one side of the comparison was irrelevant to the, well, comparison.

And I don't think it requires that you give "credence" to the stereotype beyond being able to identify it. Just like you don't need to give credence to Indian stereotypes to get a joke involving Apu in the Simpsons. And a lot of the jokes involving Apu revolve around nothing more than him acting like a stereotype.

Mr Sausage wrote:Well I'm happy to see that most of this is a straw man, so it doesn't need to be refuted. Although I am confused about how you took a post that said the joke was about "the absurd comparison between two seemingly unrelated things" and thought it meant that one side of the comparison was irrelevant to the, well, comparison.

Two things:

1) I'm really tired of being accused of strawmanning by people with no apparent working knowledge of what the term means. I'm not putting words in your mouth, and I'm not misrepresenting the arguments that you're making.

2) My main point is that the joke doesn't require that someone see it as a "comparison between two seemingly unrelated things" in order to work as a joke. You see it that way, fine, but it works just as well as a crude putdown of women, and probably even better, because the punchline of the joke is, in fact, a crude putdown of women. There are ways to construct the joke you're describing that don't require a crude putdown of women as the punchline; if nothing else, MacFarlane's construction was lazy and relatively if the intent was as you describe.

I grant that it's possible to see the joke the way you see it, I just don't think it's the most obvious way to interpret it, and to be frank I think it's a bit of a reach.

And I don't think it requires that you give "credence" to the stereotype beyond being able to identify it. Just like you don't need to give credence to Indian stereotypes to get a joke involving Apu in the Simpsons. And a lot of the jokes involving Apu revolve around nothing more than him acting like a stereotype.

Are you really sure this bolsters your argument? Doesn't making this comparison implicitly concede that MacFarlane's joke also "revolves around nothing more than a stereotype," i.e., pretty much what I'm saying?

mfunk9786 wrote:There would be 0.0% controversy over a "Zero Dark Thirty is about how men never listen!" joke. As there shouldn't be. These are such mild Borscht-belt jokes... I can't believe this is even a discussion.

This country has so many problems involving gender discrimination... This is like walking into a home that needs dozens of major repairs and focusing a week's worth of attention on one crooked nail.

Yeah, I think that what Mfunk has done shows perfectly how unoffensive in the grand scheme of things this is. If you can, like Mfunk, place the joke in the reverse sphere of stereotype and it comes across as innocuous than it probably is innocuous. This isn't to say this strand of comedy couldn't possibly be sexist, but in this context and with this usage it is not sexist.

I was kind of disappointed in the 007 tribute (except Bassey singing "Goldfinger" of course). Would have been nice if some of the former Bond's came on stage instead of Halle Berry introducing a montage.

I've read rumours that they wanted to so that, but Brosnan didn't want to do it.

Brian C wrote:1) I'm really tired of being accused of strawmanning by people with no apparent working knowledge of what the term means. I'm not putting words in your mouth, and I'm not misrepresenting the arguments that you're making.

Hmm. I think I might've figured out what a strawman is, Brian C. Isn't it when you argue that a joke is based on a comparison of two things and then someone comes along and claims you said that one of the parts of the comparison is beside the point, as if they didn't know that in a comparison both parts have to be the point?

If people kept accusing me of using strawmen, I'd start to consider the option that doesn't involve everyone else somehow being ignorant of a very easy term.

Brian C wrote:Are you really sure this bolsters your argument? Doesn't making this comparison implicitly concede that MacFarlane's joke also "revolves around nothing more than a stereotype," i.e., pretty much what I'm saying?

I don't know, Brian C, do you think that the Simpsons is based on reinforcing stereotypes and are you now going reserve some of your critical rhetoric for it? Or do you think that using a stereotype doesn't require that you give credence to that stereotype, and that the Simpson's shows it?

Personally I think people are confusing the bathetic structure of the joke with a real desire to put women down. The sentiments here are admirable but misplaced.

knives wrote:I've read rumors that they wanted to so that, but Brosnan didn't want to do it.

Does he hold something against the role that I hadn't heard about? I heard that rumor as well, actually I just kept waiting for it to happen and it never did.

I don't know what you guys are complaining about. This was the best Tony Awards yet! Oh, wait.

knives wrote:I've read rumours that they wanted to so that, but Brosnan didn't want to do it.

Connery didn't want to either.

mfunk9786 wrote:

knives wrote:I've read rumors that they wanted to so that, but Brosnan didn't want to do it.

Does he hold something against the role that I hadn't heard about? I heard that rumor as well, actually I just kept waiting for it to happen and it never did.

It might be how he was "let go." Before The Matador came out I read an interview with him where he explains he simply got a phone call from one of the producers and was told he was done as Bond with no explanation.

MichaelB wrote:It might be how he was "let go." Before The Matador came out I read an interview with him where he explains he simply got a phone call from one of the producers and was told he was done as Bond with no explanation.

That's sad to hear. I've always liked Brosnan, and felt that he'd been scapegoated for films that had really failed because of bad writing and direction. It's annoyed me that critics eager to defend the "controversial" casting choice of Craig have felt it necessary to take potshots at Brosnan while his back has been turned. And I say that as someone who thinks they've both done great work with the role, no matter how bad the films themselves have been.

I heartily recommend the Top Gear special done around the time Skyfall came out (and has aired on BBC America already) for anyone disappointed in the segment like I was.

This is what I don't get. Are the news writers playing dumb or just plain dumb? Seth says that he is not coming back as a host, but this article points out that "Charlize Theron appeared to look particularly upset when the song referred to her partially nude performance in Monster." Didn't these people even notice that Charlize was in the joke and when they showed that she was "embarrassed" it was from a pre-taped clip?

They're dumb.

The writers will twist anything to prove their (non-existent) point. Seriously, I do believe much of the supposed hubbub about all of this is being partially drummed up to bring more attention to the Oscars than they deserve, just like Ricky Gervais's "scandalous" GG hosting a few years back. Gervais also said he wouldn't be back, but lo and behold, he was. The Hollywood community clearly had fun with this, as evidenced by the number of actresses who played along in the BLATANTLY OBVIOUSLY PRE-TAPED shots, including Theron, Naomi Watts and Jennifer Lawrence. Sally Field also joined in a mildly raunchy pre-taped sketch.

Personally, I'm not a fan of Seth MacFarlane, but there was nothing that I could see that should have caused the kind of outrage the media is claiming has been stirred. The Anti-Defamation league and most of the groups that are chiming in will always go after the most high-profile targets to ensure that their organizations receive news coverage. If MacFarlane backed down every time he received negative press, he would have stopped making his animated series years ago.

dx23 wrote:This is what I don't get. Are the news writers playing dumb or just plain dumb? Seth says that he is not coming back as a host, but this article points out that "Charlize Theron appeared to look particularly upset when the song referred to her partially nude performance in Monster." Didn't these people even notice that Charlize was in the joke and when they showed that she was "embarrassed" it was from a pre-taped clip?

Yeah, that's pretty hardheaded of the writers. It was painfully obvious those were pre-taped segments as part of the "alternate universe" of him performing those songs. The dresses all the women wore in the clips didn't match their actual dresses of form the actual awards at all.

Plus Charlize managed to get up there to dance with Channing a few seconds later (in what I thought was a fairly classy touch I might add) after she was apparently so disgusted. Amazing how stupid people can be.

cdnchris wrote:Amazing how stupid people can be.

Sadly, it's gotten to the point where I'm no longer surprised by this, particularly when it comes to most forms of journalism.

I don't mean to dredge this up, but this article had a comment I totally agree with...

He wasn't the right person for that show. He would be fine doing the Emmys or something. I don't know what the Academy was thinking in the first place. They need a serious, boring person hosting that serious, boring show.

The problem is that the Oscars used to be what the Globes are now: a fun, boozy dinner for film folk hosted by a wiseacre (preferably Bob Hope, Jack Benny, or Johnny Carson). Then it became a broadcast: bloated up with performances, tributes, and speeches. An epic, maudlin variety show.

I think there are two paths the ceremony can take in the future: embrace the glitz and pageantry and have a gracious yet anodyne host (some bland, functionary, Hollywood eminence grise like Jane Fonda) or, better yet, no host at all (it's been done before!) OR cut the songs and dances, the clip reels, the popularity parade of dead people, the comedy bits, and just make it the ultimate Hollywood insider party. If they try to have it both ways, they're only going to alienate the old guard that just wants to celebrate itself as well as "New Hollywood" that just wants a fun night out.

Problem is, the Globes have already successfully transformed in the past few years from a dull Oscars also-ran into that ultimate party.

I've always wondered what it'd be like without a host, who is practically useless to the show anyway. Same could be said for all awards shows really. I can't really see any negatives to it. Think about this year. We wouldn't have had to hear that Jaws music and Seth will have fewer drinks thrown in his face.

There's a disconnect between what the academy and ABC want (ratings, buzz, an entertaining ceremony) and what the attendees want (a serious, solemn pat on the back and celebration of themselves). Shows that comedians host (Jon Stewart, Chris Rock, even Seth MacFarlane) have proven to be more entertaining than ones like the Hathaway/Franco or Crystal snoozefests, but you have to keep your core of actors happy too. If the academy and ABC really want to get these kinds of ratings year after year, they need to choose to do a more bawdy, self-referential show and stick with it until it just becomes the norm and fewer and fewer attendees expect anything different each year. But make up your minds, guys!