The Huntsman: Winter's War

^Yeah good point, that to. And it's weird because the others don't really have that problem.
 
:up:

I also don't want you to feel like I am attacking something you love. I know it can get like that, when sometimes it feels like movies I grew up with and still love are now being told that they aren't okay. Because I think we grew up liking a lot of the same things, even if you are an old man and I ain't quite yet. :woot:

You may very well be right on this subject, but part of me of me is always going to wonder. But your argument is more then sound.

Lol. :D No worries, I know the 80's was a decade that has not aged well in many ways but dammit if I still don't like revisiting it lol.

Only time will tell my friend, we shall see. :)

I thought Darth summed it up better than me and I see you already answered to his so in turn, you answered me. But yes, it has to do with gender roles and it's what we learn from early childhood that's implanted into our minds. For some reason it's okay for girls to play with action figures or be Woody for Halloween yet for boys if they pretend to be Elsa in Frozen they'll be ridiculed and looked down upon by their friends and at worst, their parents or just father.

I think at worst Stewart is just very awkward in interviews and just has views and opinions that doesn't mesh well with the Hollywood machine. Now despite us not always agreeing with her, this shouldn't be a factor in her losing out a franchise. If she prefers to do indie films and it was her choice to leave and say **** it, then that's fine and it's a whole other thing seeing as it was her choice and it wasn't by external forces.


That's an interesting side aspect, I think girls being told they can't be heroes or soldiers, agents etc...is the focus of many of these discussions as it's such a deep rooted issues built over decades, but there is certainly a reverse issue for young boys, most likely because when a girl wants to be Spidey or Woody it's seen as just being a tomboy, however boys usually don't want anything to do with girls at all at that young sage so if they asked to dress as a girl it would raise the sexuality questions which is another issue again. It's tough for kids but also a minefield for parents.

I like Kristen as an actress and was one of the few who seemed to like her in the first film, but I think on promotional stuff she seems either scared of her own shadow or high, which is not ideal from a studio point of view as promoting a big film on the talk show circuit is part of why they pay a lead the big money.

Teaser for the trailer.

[YT]watch?v=AkSrWs-RAmw[/YT]

Emily on a Polar Bear! :tmm:
 
That's an interesting side aspect, I think girls being told they can't be heroes or soldiers, agents etc...is the focus of many of these discussions as it's such a deep rooted issues built over decades, but there is certainly a reverse issue for young boys, most likely because when a girl wants to be Spidey or Woody it's seen as just being a tomboy, however boys usually don't want anything to do with girls at all at that young sage so if they asked to dress as a girl it would raise the sexuality questions which is another issue again. It's tough for kids but also a minefield for parents.

I like Kristen as an actress and was one of the few who seemed to like her in the first film, but I think on promotional stuff she seems either scared of her own shadow or high, which is not ideal from a studio point of view as promoting a big film on the talk show circuit is part of why they pay a lead the big money.

Indeed, and that's what I'm talking about. These executive and such have lived in the same society we do and are groomed on these concepts and they are passed onto generation after generation because they are just seen as normal things. Worse, a lot of these people are already rich and already privileged and live in their bubble and think their bubble is how the world works.

With girl's being tomboys, absolutely, it goes into men being threatened by women doing what is known for just them to do, but you'll oddly see people who want to appear to be progressive to be okay with girls dressing up as men, because we've made a little more head way on that, but when it comes to men pretending to be women, that is something that is still frowned upon. Which is weird because this is all a two way street. Some how now it's not okay? What's the difference if things are equal? If you ask them why, it leads into the answers you said. Which reveals yet another disturbing part of our perceptions of society. They all cross paths with each other in some way.

But if that's still the case that's still pretty poor reasoning from a studio perspective. It shouldn't have to be that. It suggests that their money and how an actor presents them-self is more important than the actual human being who is just being herself. Not what Hollywood wants her to be. It just kind of reveals how it's so business orientated and not thinking about the person and by an extent the woman.
 
My disappointment is that it seems very few people are raising this issue. I've seen essays written all throughout the web about MCU's diversity problem or whatever. This seems to be a major talking point these days.

This is a very valid example of a choice for a franchise that is not very progressive. And no one is saying a peep except some posters at the Hype.
 
Indeed, and that's what I'm talking about. These executive and such have lived in the same society we do and are groomed on these concepts and they are passed onto generation after generation because they are just seen as normal things. Worse, a lot of these people are already rich and already privileged and live in their bubble and think their bubble is how the world works.

With girl's being tomboys, absolutely, it goes into men being threatened by women doing what is known for just them to do, but you'll oddly see people who want to appear to be progressive to be okay with girls dressing up as men, because we've made a little more head way on that, but when it comes to men pretending to be women, that is something that is still frowned upon. Which is weird because this is all a two way street. Some how now it's not okay? What's the difference if things are equal? If you ask them why, it leads into the answers you said. Which reveals yet another disturbing part of our perceptions of society. They all cross paths with each other in some way.

But if that's still the case that's still pretty poor reasoning from a studio perspective. It shouldn't have to be that. It suggests that their money and how an actor presents them-self is more important than the actual human being who is just being herself. Not what Hollywood wants her to be. It just kind of reveals how it's so business orientated and not thinking about the person and by an extent the woman.

I think we have to remember not to lose sight of the fact men and women are different in many ways, we are often wired quite differently. For instance girls dance together, they are very tactile with each other when out, they do each others hair and nails, we as guys simply don't have that kind of intimacy with our buddies, just like how if a girl throws on jeans and her guys hockey jersey it's not unusual, however most guys are not gonna suddenly wear items of her girlier clothing.

I disagree there, to me actor or actress, when you are paid millions to lead a huge picture part of the job is to promote that film, it's why someone like Joaquin Phoenix wont be hit up for a lead in an expensive blockbuster anytime soon, social skills are part of being a big name on the poster star IMO.
 
My disappointment is that it seems very few people are raising this issue. I've seen essays written all throughout the web about MCU's diversity problem or whatever. This seems to be a major talking point these days.

This is a very valid example of a choice for a franchise that is not very progressive. And no one is saying a peep except some posters at the Hype.

Maybe because the MCU is a big deal and will get lots of attention for those holding it up to scrutiny, plus this has 3 female leads so it's not exactly the same as the MCU issues some have.
 
Maybe because the MCU is a big deal and will get lots of attention for those holding it up to scrutiny, plus this has 3 female leads so it's not exactly the same as the MCU issues some have.

The main guy is Chris Hemsworth, and the title is The Huntsman: Winter's War. Before it was Snow White and the Huntsman. So the female character in the title is gone. Two of those female leads are the villain, and the female heroine will be playing second banana or love interest to Chris Hemsworth.

This movie is a big budget tentpole. Somewhere of probably over $200 million was spent on the first movie and probably a similar amount on this film. So this is a big deal. The size of this film is comparable or more to many MCU releases.

As for the skeevy behavior of Kristen Stewart or whatever, plenty of males in show business have performed in an unprofessional manner and they don't always get booted from a franchise as a result.
 
LEPZWUm.jpg


PmRSc8e.jpg
 
am i the only one who is seeing a very big difference in posters for Thor and Chastain? he looks strong and she vulnerable,a little sad and very soft. Chastain doesnt have visible muscles on her arms. but you can still see her shoulders and biceps. on the posters they airbrushed her body so that she looks weak. why?

why cant woman on posters for blockbusters look strong and angry? why do they always make them look like they pose for a fashion magazine? Black Widow Winter Soldier?
 
The main guy is Chris Hemsworth, and the title is The Huntsman: Winter's War. Before it was Snow White and the Huntsman. So the female character in the title is gone. Two of those female leads are the villain, and the female heroine will be playing second banana or love interest to Chris Hemsworth.

This movie is a big budget tentpole. Somewhere of probably over $200 million was spent on the first movie and probably a similar amount on this film. So this is a big deal. The size of this film is comparable or more to many MCU releases.

As for the skeevy behavior of Kristen Stewart or whatever, plenty of males in show business have performed in an unprofessional manner and they don't always get booted from a franchise as a result.

You speak as if you have seen the film, on top of that being the title character doesn't always mean you are the character ofd greatest importance in the actual story, it varies and here it was a simple case of The Hunstman being established in the prior film, so they carried him over.

None of that is relevant to the fact that the MCU is a juggernaut with huge crossover appeal that is a lightning rod, this film is under the radar for many, hell I'd forgotten it existed before the bump yesterday.

Both her and the director were booted so it wasn't like only the woman was punished, the studio wanted to remove itself from their sordid little affair, nothing wrong with that IMO.
 
Why should women on poster's look angry? Does anger make you think shes' badass only.
 
I feel like the whole "well there are plenty of guys in Hollywood who do skeevy things" idea is a bit of a false-argument. Yes, that's undeniably true, and YES, the fact that they often don't face any real consequences pains the industry in a bad light. You'll get no argument from me on that. BUT, that doesn't mean that Kristen Stewart automatically gets a pass for her behavior either. And no one is saying that she cannot act (she still does). They just decided to take this franchise in a different. And other reasons for this probably include:

-Her performance in the first movie got mixed reviews.
-Most people found Ravenna and The Huntsman to be the best characters in that movie.
-Stewart hasn't proven to be a particularly bankable star outside of Twilight.
-Etc.

As for the MCU, their problem is that, for all of their touting of "strong female characters," all of said characters tend to be supporting ones or love interests (at least in the films). And the MCU has been going on for almost a decade and has 12 movies, with 2 more on the way next year, all of whom star white guys. So it's an ongoing pattern with them.
 
Why should women on poster's look angry? Does anger make you think shes' badass only.

We are reaching a point where every little thing involving a woman in these films is going to be scrutinized and nitpicked to within an inch of it's life.
 
am i the only one who is seeing a very big difference in posters for Thor and Chastain? he looks strong and she vulnerable,a little sad and very soft. Chastain doesnt have visible muscles on her arms. but you can still see her shoulders and biceps. on the posters they airbrushed her body so that she looks weak. why?

why cant woman on posters for blockbusters look strong and angry? why do they always make them look like they pose for a fashion magazine? Black Widow Winter Soldier?

Agreed, also why are her eyes closed? You should check out the posters for Rey (Daisy Ridley's character) in the new Star Wars film. They do a MUCH BETTER job in this regard. For example, I have this one:

PH57OsK6e3vU89_1_l.jpg


Hanging on the wall in my study.

Also it's not a matter of Chastain needing to look "angry." It's a matter of Hemsworth getting a more "action hero" pose while hers is much more passive/delicate. Again, it's an undeniable standard, one that is hardly unique to this posters. I agree that the Charlize/Emily one looks really good though.
 
As for the MCU, their problem is that, for all of their touting of "strong female characters," all of said characters tend to be supporting ones or love interests (at least in the films). And the MCU has been going on for almost a decade and has 12 movies, with 2 more on the way next year, all of whom star white guys. So it's an ongoing pattern with them.

In fairness they have adapted their biggest characters first to build towards The Avengers and they have been white since their inception, it could be argued that Black Panther should have happened before GotG or Ant-Man though.
 
And that Captain Marvel (or Black Widow) should happen before a freaking Ant-Man sequel or Peter Parker version 3.0.
 
Personally, I like and I'm willing to give the movie a shot.

For me, Hemsworth and Theron were the main reasons I saw the first one and I loved both of them in it. Personally didn't care much for Kristen's interpretation of Snow White - and though some of the problems I had was how she delivered it, I acknolwedge that some of it was just the writing (though I will say she was more tolerable in SWatH than she was in the Twilight films - but the Twilight films are a whole 'nother can of worms). For me, with how the first one ended... with Snow as queen and the Huntsman going off, I just figured that any additional film would probably follow his adventures as he traveled since I recall there being talk of doing films with him showing up in other fairy tale stories. I never really expected them to continue to focus on Snow. But maybe that's just me.

So Hemsworth and Theron continue to be the draw for me. I like Emily Blunt. Haven't seen enough of Chastain's work to form an opinion of her yet. I'm probably willing to give this an opening weekend viewing (if my schedule allows)
 
And that Captain Marvel (or Black Widow) should happen before a freaking Ant-Man sequel or Peter Parker version 3.0.

I disagree there, Spidey is the crown jewel of Marvel, fans have been clamouring for him to be in the MCU since it's inception, they had to strike when that opportunity arose as he's the biggest draw they have, it would make no business sense to hold off in favour of any character.
 
Snow White's story felt pretty much closed by the end of that film to be honest. This movie is exploring the backstory more. My guess is that there's some kind of war/struggle for power between Ravenna and her sister, with The Huntsman and Chastain's character getting caught up in it.
 
I disagree there, Spidey is the crown jewel of Marvel, fans have been clamouring for him to be in the MCU since it's inception, they had to strike when that opportunity arose as he's the biggest draw they have, it would make no business sense to hold off in favour of any character.

Oh please, don't tell me that they NEEDED to rush out a Spidey film barely two years later. If he's that damn popular than his movie will be just as successful 4 years down the road, or even more so since you could build a lot of hype/anticipation for it.
 
Oh please, don't tell me that they NEEDED to rush out a Spidey film barely two years later. If he's that damn popular than his movie will be just as successful 4 years down the road, or even more so since you could build a lot of hype/anticipation for it.

Well after the horrendous mess of TASM2 I imagine Marvel and Sony wanted to get Spidey back on track ASAP as he's worth more than all of their other characters bar Iron Man combined. So from a studio point of view, in particular Sony,s, they want to get that Spidey money ASAP so everything else moved to accommodate the biggest star, just logical business.
 
Agreed, also why are her eyes closed? You should check out the posters for Rey (Daisy Ridley's character) in the new Star Wars film. They do a MUCH BETTER job in this regard. For example, I have this one:

PH57OsK6e3vU89_1_l.jpg


Hanging on the wall in my study.

Also it's not a matter of Chastain needing to look "angry." It's a matter of Hemsworth getting a more "action hero" pose while hers is much more passive/delicate. Again, it's an undeniable standard, one that is hardly unique to this posters. I agree that the Charlize/Emily one looks really good though.
i like everything with Rey. from footage to marketing around her. :)
 
It is kinda funny though that we have unknowns (or near-unknowns) in potentially iconic and groundbreaking female roles like Rey and Wonder Woman, and yet, here are three of the top actresses in the world right now, slumming it for a paycheck in this Huntsman crap.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,290
Messages
22,081,114
Members
45,881
Latest member
lucindaschatz
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"