The Huntsman: Winter's War

Personally I dont give a **** about Snow White and I certainly didnt watch the first film for Kristen Stewart or Snow White. I watched it for Hemsworth and the Huntsman and thats the case with everyone I know. Well except for my buddy who is a twilight fan and has a crush on K Stew. But besides his type and some people making claims about sexism I doubt anyone is remotely torn up about K Stew or the character being gone. Plenty of other characters for the Huntsman to encounter.
 
Personally I dont give a **** about Snow White and I certainly didnt watch the first film for Kristen Stewart or Snow White. I watched it for Hemsworth and the Huntsman and thats the case with everyone I know. Well except for my buddy who is a twilight fan and has a crush on K Stew. But besides his type I doubt anyone is remotely torn up about K Stew or the character being gone.
I hate Twilight, but I am a fan of Stewart. So do I count as half a point? :o

Also, where were you and your friends when Blackhat and Rush came out? :oldrazz:
 
There's not much to examine really, when the film called for a hero the strong male type was the choice based off the wars that had taken place predominately with men in battle. I mean even the look took time to change, male leads all looked a certain way at one time, now you have different looks and types from the ultra macho Rock and Vin Diesel to the more flamboyant Depp and RDJ.

Women had several hurdles to jump before they even thought about the lead role and whether people could by into a 100lb woman beating up a bunch of guys the way they could Clint Eastwood. Things take time, as we see now with Ronda Rousey as the biggest draw in fighting sports outside of Mayweather. The money is a seperate issue, there is no progression scale on pay, Lawrence for instance should be getting the kind of money Depp gets for POTC for her role as Katniss.

As for the protecting their investment, they weren't getting rid of a woman just for the sake of it with Stewart, they got rid of her and the director due to their sleazy antics on the first film.

It's great leading men have progressed, but they're still men at the end of the day. You don't see as much variation and change with actresses. Because they haven't been in enough movies to make all these different progressions. While we've seen Katherine Hepburn to Diane Keaton wearing a tie to Kate Winslet. But what they also have in common is that even those women have been ridiculed for certain things actors aren't. The average actress who gets work now are still usually young, beautiful and a certain age.

And that comes from society as how we see men in these roles. How we just see them and don't make the effort to see that women by now can do the same things. But when I say police, people would usually think a man. Same with a fireman. I mean the word man is in these titles. Women aren't thought in these roles because women throughout history were usually second and pigeonholed in certain other roles. These things are just programmed in our brains from very early on where things that shouldn't be normal are deemed normal.

I know Sanders is at fault too and isn't directing this sequel, but the man is now making ****ing Ghost in a Shell, an even better potential film than this film's predecessor. He's climbing up. And where's Stewart? A sequel is seen as a next step too, especially for a lead role. And she's not there. Even these are separate cases now, the bigger picture of Hollywood favors Sanders. This is more of a regression when this first film, despite it not being good, helped an actress to be a step closer to that long road to equality that people say. And yes, things are slow and they take time. But they shouldn't be taking this long. And women should have never been treated like this to be at this long road to equality. People either haven't seen this or they're just so complacent. Either is a bad thing. Things can be done where great things can happen sooner than people think. People's thinking needs to be changed and actions need to be taken to upend these things. It's why I'm happy those lawsuits are happening in Hollywood where women are being interviewed and asked about their treatment and their lack of opportunity.
 
Last edited:
I hate Twilight, but I am a fan of Stewart. So do I count as half a point? :o

Also, where were you and your friends when Blackhat and Rush came out? :oldrazz:

Those are two very different films, and no one I know were interested in those films or the character he was playing in those films.
 
Id be willing to bet money most women were going for Chris Hemsworth and not K Stew.
Using this logic, wouldn't most superhero flicks and male dominate franchise flicks skew female? Who exactly do actresses draw then?
 
Using this logic, wouldn't most superhero flicks and male dominate franchise flicks skew female? Who exactly do actresses draw then?

No. Superhero films arent fairytale films. As far as I know fairytale stuff tends to skew more female than superhero stuff. That male percentage would probably be a lot lower if not for Chris being fresh off of Thor and if not for the trailers.

I have no doubt K Stew drew in some young teens and tweens and twilight fans but I dont think she was the main draw at all. As far as I can tell K Stew is the most reviled aspect of the first film.

Charlize probably drew more people than K Stew. :funny:
 
Last edited:
No. Superhero films arent fairytale films. As far as I know fairytale stuff tends to skew more female than superhero stuff.

I have no doubt K Stew drew in some young teens and tweens and twilight fans but I dont think she was the main draw at all. As far as I can tell K Stew is the most reviled aspect of the first film.
She was reviled in Twilight as well, and adored by the majority of the fanbase. Also, to be fair they sold the movie a bit like LotR, more then classic fairytale, so I don't think that quite applies. This feels too much like internet logic imo.
 
Are we all going to ignore the fact that Scarlett Johannson got the second-highest pay grade for Age of Ultron and Jennifer Lawrence got paid more than Chris Pratf for their upcoming movie together?
 
Yeah, J-Law is kind of the exception right now. She's an A-lister all the way and can pretty much punch her own ticket. Chastain and Blunt are excellent actors but they ain't commanding that cheddar. Right now Lawrence can pretty much get a flick greenlit on her name.
 
Are we all going to ignore the fact that Scarlett Johannson got the second-highest pay grade for Age of Ultron and Jennifer Lawrence got paid more than Chris Pratf for their upcoming movie together?

Outliers and exceptions happen.
 
Outliers and exceptions happen.
Yep. You can't name a couple of names and then act like there aren't 20 names you could list on the other side of that list.

Yeah, J-Law is kind of the exception right now. She's an A-lister all the way and can pretty much punch her own ticket. Chastain and Blunt are excellent actors but they ain't commanding that cheddar. Right now Lawrence can pretty much get a flick greenlit on her name.
Exceptions prove the rule. That is why they are exceptions.
 
Y'all be sittin' 'round here like:

Tin-foil-hats-Signs.jpg
 
And that is exactly what I am talking about. Because as we all know, sexism is a myth, a conspiracy. :doh:
 
Last edited:
This thread is fascinating to me. First people constantly whine about "why is even getting made?" Despite all of the other films that could fit that notion, but don't get criticized for that nearly as much here. And no with the "Hollywood is sexist" thing. That gets brought up in other places, and people immediately try and shoot it down with nonsense about "PC agendas" and "SJW's." Yet here, there's been like 5 straight pages of seemingly nothing but this. And for a movie that "no one's interested in," they seem obsessed with constantly talking about various aspects of it, it's weird.
 
Have star-drive vehicles ever really sniffed that air? Even in the golden age star system, it was about the fanbase of the material. No one has come close to selling the tickets Gone with the Wind did. The Wizard of Oz was The Wizard of Oz.

What made a star a star was making the good money on the average sized budgets.

And I honestly don't think it is anymore of a risk as we watch so many of these male led films crash and burn. Some I love. It is just a set-in mindset. You know, like how a coach continues to play a certain England captain even as he continues to disintegrates in front of our eyes. :oldrazz:

Oh that is low, I was using this international break to forget about him. :argh: :( As far as star driven vehicles go the bar has moved given how many films are sniffing around that $100M opening weekend every year. Also you mention Gone with the Wind, at the time Clark Gable was known as King of Hollywood, he was a huge reason for that films success.

The risk factor is probably less so these days but even when you look at the mid budget draws it's Neeson, Rock and Statham that put out solid earners. I think we are seeing the switch in some of the bigger franchises where they have the source to fall back on, and given how few original big budget movies there are these days that's probably all that matters.

How many LotR-like flicks have made money since LotR?

How many were attaching that idea to one of the most beloved fairy tales of all time?

Sleazy public antics haven't ruined Charlie Sheen's career yet.

They are his career at this point, he's a walking car wreck and that is all he is now.

I agree that it can go overboard. But as with some cases it doesn't apply, some cases it does. In this case, I think it does, you don't and are presenting your argument in more then a fair manner. I mean, this is way better then your bizarre fixation on BB-8 over Rey. :o

In fairness it's BB-8 over everyone in the film bar Han and Chewie. :oldrazz:
 
Are we all going to ignore the fact that Scarlett Johannson got the second-highest pay grade for Age of Ultron and Jennifer Lawrence got paid more than Chris Pratf for their upcoming movie together?

And Barack Obama got elected president twice. Does that mean racism isn't a thing that exists anymore?
 
It's great leading men have progressed, but they're still men at the end of the day. You don't see as much variation and change with actresses. Because they haven't been in enough movies to make all these different progressions. While we've seen Katherine Hepburn to Diane Keaton wearing a tie to Kate Winslet. But what they also have in common is that even those women have been ridiculed for certain things actors aren't. The average actress who gets work now are still usually young, beautiful and a certain age.

And that comes from society as how we see men in these roles. How we just see them and don't make the effort to see that women by now can do the same things. But when I say police, people would usually think a man. Same with a fireman. I mean the word man is in these titles. Women aren't thought in these roles because women throughout history were usually second and pigeonholed in certain other roles. These things are just programmed in our brains from very early on where things that shouldn't be normal are deemed normal.

I know Sanders is at fault too and isn't directing this sequel, but the man is now making ****ing Ghost in a Shell, an even better potential film than this film's predecessor. He's climbing up. And where's Stewart? A sequel is seen as a next step too, especially for a lead role. And she's not there. Even these are separate cases now, the bigger picture of Hollywood favors Sanders. This is more of a regression when this first film, despite it not being good, helped an actress to be a step closer to that long road to equality that people say. And yes, things are slow and they take time. But they shouldn't be taking this long. And women should have never been treated like this to be at this long road to equality. People either haven't seen this or they're just so complacent. Either is a bad thing. Things can be done where great things can happen sooner than people think. People's thinking needs to be changed and actions need to be taken to upend these things. It's why I'm happy those lawsuits are happening in Hollywood where women are being interviewed and asked about their treatment and their lack of opportunity.

Yes, the variety of what is considered attractive in Hollywood is a much broader spectrum of shapes and sizes when it comes to actors, no question about that.

In fairness men are thought of first in those roles because there is a much greater percentile in these jobs in society, and while we are seeing more and more action roles for women in TV than in cinema they often are in a fantasy arena, but given that is the arena where the bulk of the money is these days then it's a strong start.

The 3rd paragraph is a mixture of stuff, as far as her missing out on the sequel, well both are so that seems fair if the studio wanted to distance themselves, but your point about whether she'll get another franchise opportunity while he has is a fair one, however I would say that I think there might well be more to it than that, Stewart is not ideal to build a franchise on as she's hopeless at promotion most of the time and I suspect over time she'd probably lean more towards the indie films anyway. However as far as issues with treatment go there certainly needs to be changes made, especially as regards to actresses age, Maggie Gyllenhaal's story was the tip of the ice berg and hopefully will lead to some sort of proactive measures taking place.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"