your £$ support needed

part of a small rebellion | by maryann johanson

the magic bullet for improving the number of women directors working in Hollywood


And just because I’m on an angry roll today over the deplorable position of women in the film industry

Last week, Indiewire blog Women and Hollywood ran this headline:

Universal Chief Donna Langley: There is No “Magic Bullet” to Improve Number of Women Directors Working on Studio Films

It refers to a DGA Quarterly magazine interview with Langley, in which she says this:

There’s no reason whatsoever why [women] can’t direct [tentpole and male-oriented action films]. In my own experience, when we have an open directing assignment of any kind, not just the big films, I would say it is the exception, not the rule, that there is a woman in the group of directors that we are interviewing.

Translation: “Sure, women are capable of directing the sorts of movies my studio makes. It’s just that I never think to ask any women if they’d like to do so.”

Langley appears not to realize how full of shit she is when she says, “I don’t think there is a magic bullet answer” to the lack of women directors. Because it’s pretty goddamn clear that the “magic bullet” is this: Hire more women.

This applies to all the studios, not just Universal. Like, maybe, the next time a studio is thinking about giving a $150 million tentpole film to a man with no directing experience — as Paramount has done with Star Trek 3, which will be directed by Roberto Orci, who has never directed a film before, a fact that Variety didn’t even deem worthy of mention in its announcement of this news — give it to a woman with directing experience.

Magic. Fucking. Bullet.

  • RogerBW

    “A” woman.

    Probably “a” black guy, too.

    Unless they can double up and get a black woman to do the pointless interview.

    See, we’re progressive!

  • Listen, I know I’m the boss and it’s my job to oversee all the hiring of directors for all our movies. But you have to understand… female directors? Ewww, am I right? Boys don’t want to watch movies with girls involved in them. Unless the girls are mostly nude.

  • Tonio Kruger

    But, hey, just because we’re all for diversity doesn’t necessarily mean we’re for — you know — diversity.

    Who do you think we are — The New York Times?

  • Oracle Mun

    Maybe we need magic bullets to kill the cooties Hollywood is so afraid of?

  • Ace Stephens

    I think the selection of Orci is a very odd example to point toward, given his experience writing, his close nature to the production of the Star Trek reboot films, his actively campaigning for the position from within, etc. Certainly, many fans were frustrated in varying regards by the news but I’d select a more “open field” to begin with as the target of my ire rather than the suggestion that someone with significant on-set experience and close ties to the production was selected to direct. In fact, that notion for the “Hollywood” world at large would be much better to critique – the suggestion that women can’t get hired due to a lack of experience directing many large-scale films…because they are not offered such films to direct in the first place. Therefore, it is – in such a case – a relative cycle that perpetuates itself.

  • Danielm80

    If you want to defend Orci, go ahead, but if you think that MaryAnn hasn’t criticized the lack of opportunities for women, or the vicious circle that creates, you haven’t been reading very carefully. Specifically, you haven’t read the comment you’re responding to, or the other article (linked above) she wrote on the same topic, on the same day. She also chose to target Orci, who was hired over women with much more substantial directing experience. That may be worth arguing about, but I’m not sure it’s effective to argue with MaryAnn by repeating the exact points she already made.

  • Mansplaining!

  • Ace Stephens

    I wouldn’t defend Orci’s creative choices at all – however, I will defend the hiring of Orci in this instance. If you thought somehow I was suggesting that MaryAnn didn’t criticize those things, it makes one wonder how you so thoroughly missed that the subject of my comment was Orci’s hiring for Star Trek 3 being a terrible example for how women aren’t hired to direct big budget projects (not that MaryAnn isn’t often tackling this subject). Since, if it was a woman writer with the track record of Orci (of over a half-dozen, big budget successful films), the hiring would be no surprise whatsoever (even the notion that the individual hired was a woman).

    If Amanda Silver ultimately winds up directing the fourth film in the reboot established by Rise of the Planet of the Apes, I won’t object on the basis of her lack of directing experience because she clearly knows the world/project/etc. And to use the example of her being hired as a good example of, “Look, more women are given directing opportunities!” would be disingenuous as she was hired from within the production team after numerous successes in the associated area she worked in.

  • Ace Stephens

    So reasonable consideration of the individual instance at hand (in which the hiring of a male individual is completely reasonable beyond “the norm” for Hollywood productions – and would be completely acceptable in the case of a woman) is considered mansplaining to you? I acknowledged that what you’re pointing out overall is very valid as a concern and yet the example you chose is a poor one (Basically saying, “Hey! Here’s a good way you could make an argument about how unfair current hiring practices are that doesn’t latch onto this largely unrelated thing!” – trying to help…but you’re being dismissive of that, as you often appear to be.). How anyone could consider such an even-handed, reasoned response to be “mansplaining” is baffling if attributable to anything other than ignoring the context of what was said and/or assuming the worst of others (in order to cling to some conceptual status quo).

    Which I’ve seen you do here to numerous individuals before, including myself. At some point, one has to question to what extent you are open to critique yourself. Or if you make it a mission to be dismissive of those who are trying to help or are looking for clarification. You’re so contentious in many instances that I get the feeling you don’t attempt to grasp where the other individual is coming from rather than, if their views are not immediately (and/or obviously) in-line with what you already thought, thinking they’re attacking you. Because, while there are trollish individuals, what they are often doing is roughly the same thing you do to films – critiquing or questioning an element they felt could be better expressed/portrayed/communicated/etc.

    One would think that, with careful consideration, a filmmaker or a reviewer who encounters these concerns remotely often would find them to be a relative roadmap to possibly finding a better means of communicating what they intend to or “getting through to” those individuals. However, seemingly, the more stubborn ones might dismiss it and continue on doing exactly as they have done.

    And yet you question why Hollywood, in a general sense, doesn’t change its ways. It would seem it’s for the same sorts of reasons you assume a straight-forward comment (about how an evident exception is not a very good example of a systemic issue because Hollywood doesn’t give women enough opportunities to begin with and, as a result, perpetuates a cycle of discrimination) is something as insidious as “mansplaining” in order to enable for yourself a means of objecting to it self-righteously. That is to say that those things outside of your view conceptually are often simply dismissed or written off as not even being worthy of consideration as a means of reaffirming the status quo…in this instance, of this site…rather than enabling growth or due consideration.

    Remind me to never again suggest that Hollywood’s evident lack of giving women directing opportunities is the result of systemic bias which prevents them from having a fully-formed perspective on the matter. …Oh, wait – that’s exactly what you did. Yet when I do it, it’s “mansplaining”…

  • Danielm80

    MaryAnn wrote paragraphs and paragraphs about the discriminatory hiring practices in Hollywood. She also made a brief, though not unimportant, comment about Orci. When you suggest that, instead of talking about him, she should discuss discriminatory hiring practices (which seems to be the implication of “…but I’d select a more ‘open field’ to begin with as the target of my ire rather than the suggestion that someone with significant on-set experience and close ties to the production was selected to direct. In fact, that notion for the “Hollywood” world at large would be much better to critique…”), three possibilities come to mind:

    (1.) You skipped over almost all of what she wrote.

    (2.) You think you can explain her points better than she can, which is “mansplaining.”

    (3.) You’re trying to make a reasonable point, but you’re expressing yourself really, really badly, in a way that impedes communication.

    I really hope we’re dealing with option 3.

  • Dr. Rocketscience

    I will defend the hiring of Orci in this instance

    On the basis of what, exactly? This?

    significant on-set experience and close ties to the production

    Any number of the production staff likely fit that description (even assuming Orci actually has significant on-set experience).

    Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman are “successful” insofar as they’ve sold a lot of scripts for movies that went on to make a lot of money. But if you look at the analyses of those films, they all succeeded in spite of their scripts, not because of them. The hallmarks of a Kurtzman/Orci script are lazy plotting, rampant logical inconsistencies, and plenty of room for flash-bang spectacle from the director.

    Orci’s “talent”, such as it is, appears to be in knowing the right people. He’s just not a strong artistic nor financial choice (well, I guess he probably comes cheap compared to Abrams) to helm a major franchise film as his directorial debut.

    As for his inclusion in MaryAnn’s analysis of the struggles faced by (would-be) female directors: in light of his general lack of qualifications, it’s clear Orci was hired because he’s part of “the club”, and it is exceedingly difficult for women to likewise become part of the club, in order to potentially be offered that kind of job. So, Orci probably didn’t get the job because he’s a man, but it sure as hell didn’t hurt.

  • Ace Stephens

    1. I read it all. But the bad example (as it is a notable exception to many of the rules in Hollywood itself) indicates that, in the case of her potential examples (as that’s what I am citing as problematic and putting forward that she could have selected a better example regarding), her focus is skewed away from those things influenced directly by what she’s describing. Hence, there are exceedingly better, far more genuinely relevant examples of the systemic issue.
    2. I don’t think I can explain those points better, exactly. Except to say that I think Orci was at best, an odd example…and, most likely, simply a bad example. The reason for my saying this is that there was no “open field” of directing candidates in that instance (which is what I was referring to with that term). Orci was “promoted from within.” Using his being director as though it exemplifies the broader issue would be like suggesting that a major secondary character on a show being promoted to lead indicates that they passed over numerous others they might have auditioned. While one can attempt to argue that with a sliver of reason, it ultimately doesn’t make any sense because – since they evidently wanted someone already deeply aware of and/or involved in the work – there is no “open field” (as in, even if one of the other leads was leaving, there is not a genuinely open pool of consideration – it was always likely to be, if they could manage, someone who was incredibly involved in their specific production process already). That’s not “mainsplaining” – that’s careful consideration of the individual instance. Which is utterly dissimilar to, say, the more “work-for-hire” approach to things such as is often the case in the MCU – like Patty Jenkins being brought on to direct Thor: The Dark World prior to Alan Taylor arbitrarily getting the job…
    3. This is entirely possible. But it’s also possible that at least some people here are prone to misinterpreting things when they’re said in a certain context which doesn’t immediately align with the already-expressed or held view. It’s possibly likely that it’s some combination of those two. Although it could presumably be something else or the arising issue could have other factors regardless…

  • Ace Stephens

    On the basis of what exactly? On the basis of his being a long-time collaborator of current franchise producer J.J. Abrams for over a decade, having written numerous financially successful films (which is the type of things most of the executives will look at, particularly if it’s not someone with much of any directing experience), co-writing as well as serving as a producer on the previous two entries, etc. These are the types of things that, when somebody with any power says, “Hey, who should we hire?”…others are likely to point out alongside the, “Orci apparently wants the job.”-thing.

    As for their succeeding in spite of their scripts, as I stated…I will not defend his creative choices. That doesn’t mean that those in charge of the production monetarily wouldn’t likely approve of the financial figures – and those already involved (such as Abrams) didn’t likely already approve conceptually of those creative choices in many instances. So, within all of this, it still makes perfect sense that he was hired. Despite the fan outcry. And most people I would consider both sane and considerate shouting, “No, no, no, no, no!” during all of the rumors prior to the announcement.

    As for your final paragraph, I agree to a large extent. However, I still think that makes his inclusion as the primary example quite questionable. One would think there are far better examples rather than, “This person who’s put in a ton of work already in related fields and is directly responsible, to a large extent, for the recent output in this specific franchise which has made a great deal of money and met with fairly good reviews from critics…is being selected to direct his first film as a blockbuster release!” for how ridiculous the hiring practices are and how much female directors are overlooked. A better example of that might be something like what I alluded to elsewhere here regarding Thor: The Dark World and how “creative differences” sprang up there…or any number of other films which “surprisingly” had a female director in the mix only for it to go to random male director #3.

    To me, that’s the type of stuff which actually holds up and proves the ultimate point regarding the severe lack (some might even say “drought”) of women directing big budget blockbusters – that women are rarely given these types of opportunities to begin with…or “it just doesn’t work out.” But the isolated instances wherein someone is “promoted from within due to an intricate knowledge of the goings-ons, expectations, concerns, motivations, etc.” being a good example of how a group of people was patently excluded for consideration? That doesn’t hold up anywhere near as well.

    While obviously nowhere near the budget (and on and on)…it’s kind of like wondering why David Duchovny or Gillian Anderson directed an episode of the X-Files at the seeming exclusion of other potential “professional directors.” It’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? Or (aside from contractual finagling) why Nimoy directed Star Trek III? Or Perkins (another novice) directed Psycho III? Or…whatever else…

    With Orci, I imagine most of the “studio” people ultimately don’t view it as being all that different from Shane Black directing Iron Man 3.

  • Of course you’re arguing. And that’s fine. But you’re not entitled to automatic agreement. You can point out whatever you want. And others can still respond that they think you are wrong about that.

  • Ace Stephens

    While I think, technically, one is arguing to dispute a claim or question its legitimacy in some form, many in the comments here become immediately defensive beyond the merits (or lack thereof) of the “differing”stance portrayed itself. So contextualizing it in that manner when – outside of a contentious viewpoint (while technically remaining “an argument”) – it’s a note or a concern or similar begins causing people to “take sides” rather than take things into consideration. Which is the type of thing that occurs on sites that might stress a very specific mindset (often, the most readily-recognized example of this to many is a website with a heavy political bias or similar) wherein those whose views don’t immediately/easily suit the typical views are treated as though they’re just pointing anything out in order to cause problems. They’re “trying to argue.” So this becomes a means of dismissing anyone’s concerns as relevant and a slippery slope toward accusing anyone with dissimilar views of “trolling” or on and on.

    I’ve read reviews here, off-and-on, for years and have seen this type of thing occur on more than a few occasions (and it has happened to me as well). Someone says something which isn’t immediately in agreement in the comments, then soon people are rallying to defend the review or similar (sometimes while ignoring much of the substance of what was said) and then it devolves into most people basically saying, “Go away because you don’t agree with us.” rather than – following, perhaps, a reply a two – addressing anything the other party put forward in a meaningful manner. It isn’t expressly the same (as it isn’t always/often on the same subjects) but it’s notably similar to what happens on websites with various political ideologies heavily promoted whenever someone comments in a manner not immediately within that ideology.

    And, therefore, it’s damaging to meaningful discourse. Just as viewing someone disputing an element of someone else’s portrayed perspective (even though they agree with the vast majority of it) as “being argumentative” or similar can be damaging (and cause unnecessary divide where, otherwise, there would be allies). It often leads to things no longer being about what is said but about “winning the argument” or “taking sides in the argument” or on and on. Whereas, if people were open to consideration of various takes from the start (by not thinking it’s “an argument” wherein they should take sides or that someone is “trying to argue”), there would easily be a means of reconciling differing views through earnest communication. That is to say that, when people disagree, they talk it out meaningfully and come to a place of understanding regardless of whether anyone ultimately changes their mind or not.

    So I was never suggesting I should get any sort of “automatic agreement.” Just that I shouldn’t have my views written off as I have seen occur on this site previously – particularly when I’m putting forward something which is roughly a helpful note about how example of an overwhelming issue might not be as suitable as intended due to numerous exceptional factors in the individual case.

  • I see. You’re being perfectly reasonable, and helpful. Of course you are.

    I am going to presume that you have no damn idea at all how often a woman are told that a man are simply being “reasonable” and just want to “help” when they are being condescending and dismissing her position. If only she would heed *his* helpful and reasonable position, she would be doing so much better.

    I stand by my example. I don’t care if you don’t like it.

  • Ace Stephens

    So, whether literally or metaphorically, the presumption here is that I’m a man. And that you hold no responsibility for your own dismissiveness while others do because they must be men (and therefore worthy of having their views dismissed as “mansplaining” immediately) if they even begin to dispute something you’re saying regarding gender.

    So ignore if someone is being reasonable or trying to help you because they must be a man being condescending toward a woman. I don’t think you realize how off-base what you’re saying is (and how it’s apparently just a means for you to continue being misguidedly self-righteous and ignore considering differing views). But, of course, I can’t actually point that out now because “I’m a man” and must have no clue what it’s like to be constantly belittled by others on an erroneous basis.

  • Danielm80

    I apologize for making assumptions about your gender. The photo of Ted Danson threw me off. I’m going to suggest, however, that you wait a few weeks, reread your original comment, and think about how it might come across to a reader who doesn’t know you or your intentions. Does it sound like a calm, reasonable statement, or does it sound like an aggressive attack?

  • Ace Stephens

    My commentary likely sounds out of place or aggressive, I’ll fully admit. I’m sure it doesn’t help that I do not visit this site tremendously often so, when I bother to interject with a concern or looking for clarification, I probably always come across as some sort of aggressive invader bent on tearing down others (which isn’t my intention at all). I am used to being criticized online for being too direct and coming across like an overzealous or extremely frustrated individual since I tend to point out issues and feel there’s a communicative disconnect wherein others often miss the point of what I’m saying (unless it’s intended to be funny – then they usually get it…). I constantly try to curb it and attempt to be as clear and direct as possible so little can be misinterpreted…and it apparently only ends up making it worse. Not that this excuses what it comes across as but I find many people aren’t used to someone just going, “Here’s my issue with what you’re saying and my reasons for stressing it.” on things. They expect there to be some sort of subtext or whatever so they’re constantly picking it apart or reading into it more than I would typically find myself doing or considering reasonable (in many instances – in others, it’s simply a difference in prerogative causing them to do so). So many “corners” of the internet, where people are used to a certain “type” of perspective being put forward, seem to be about judging first and thinking or asking questions later (if at all) and that’s completely at odds with my mentality as I’m all about asking questions (even ones from completely out of left field) and seeking mutual understanding.

    Unfortunately, given the cynical nature of many online, this means I can’t just say, “I want to help.” on something which might, otherwise, appear 2/3rds “raging” (even if I am, personally, completely calm – which means this is my personal issue causing the disconnect but it’s frustrating for me since, as indicated, my working on it tends to only lead to more problems)…without people running in to disparage me and say I’ve got some ulterior motive or I’m trolling or whatever else. Despite my occasional conflicts with people here in the past, it’s been fairly pleasant this time – by-and-large – even with my statements of misgivings and generalizations about how people here can be dismissive (although there has been some of that this time).

    It’s difficult for me to directly state what I mean without someone taking it out of context (typically, applying the immediate context or frame of reference from the forum I address them at online – although I am not fully aware of that frame of reference due to not being a constant presence). And so I add qualifiers and very specific word choices in an attempt to avoid it being misconstrued but then people take those out of context. It has occurred to me that, if this is not most often due to individuals’ own strained perspectives and limited contextual frameworks in the immediate forum, perhaps I have a learning or mental disorder of some sort since there’s a high likelihood that – when I address something at length in an “uncommon” forum – people misunderstand what I’m saying or reply in what appears to be a frustrated manner (apparently largely on the basis of what I said – although maybe I just “pick the wrong venues” to voice what can often be somewhat dissenting views). It’s awkward for me since, being someone who has worked alongside those with various learning, mental or behavioral issues off-and-on (although not in directly-related fields so I’m certainly no expert), I can’t identify what my specific cognitive concerns/issues are. Some have suggested Aspergers, generally disparagingly…

    But I have little evidence for these concerns except to say that people don’t appreciate my being direct and only 10% of people (online, that is – that’s the only place I ever run into this in any notable form…in everyday life, nearly everyone seems to “get” where I’m coming from fairly well after knowing me a brief while and I’m able to collaborate with people as an editor, omitting for them what I can’t omit from my own clarifications) seem to understand my point of view immediately. It becomes incredibly disheartening to me when everywhere I turn is another person behaving as though (I am trying to cause problems or “arguments” or am “trolling” or whatever else…) my intentions are bad or inherently self-serving (beyond the immediate want to express something to others) as a matter of course (and no matter what I say or do, I will never be able to convince them otherwise because, apparently, that’s the cynical world we live in)…

    …Where even this explanation/rationale would be considered some “defense” or attempt to portray myself as “the victim” (or derail things from the conversation held here otherwise) rather than this being viewed as me attempting to communicate something with you earnestly in the hopes that you have thoughts/ideas/feelings/whatever about it which I can find meaning in.

  • Dr. Rocketscience

    Re: Orci’s past associations with “Star Trek”, you’re describing a lot of people, many of whom will never sit in a director’s chair, whether they want to or not. For instance, Alex Kurtzman actually has a director credit. But those others clearly don’t have Orci’s talent for schmoozing.

    Re: his success rate, you may be over estimating that. Looking at boxofficemojo, he has 10 feature film writing credits. Only 4 definitely cleared their production budgets domestically (the “Star Trek” and “Transformers” films), one might have (“Amazing Spiderman 2”) and one made money only thanks to overseas boxoffice (“MI:III”). Besides that he has 3 unequivocal failures on his resume (“Cowboys and Aliens”, “Legend of Zorro”, and “The Island”). So, his success comes from major franchise films by high-profile directors. I know it may seem differently sometimes, but studio executives are not actually stupid. They’re betting the franchise will outdo him. That or he’s talking his clearly legendary game.

    Re: “The X-Files”, there’s a lot less money, and therefore a lot less risk, in television. The situations aren’t particularly analogous. Also, Gillian Anderson. But it brings up a good point: Orci is a producer/writer on a number of television shows, 4 of which are currently in production. Why has he seemingly never expressed interest in directing any of those? Why did Paramount not ask him to get his feet wet before diving in, so to speak?

    Re: Shane Black, his only apparent connection to “Iron Man” was through Robert Downey, Jr., from “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” 8 years prior. Which he did direct. Not really an analogous situation, either.

    Re: fan outcry, it’s more than just dislike of his scripts. Orci’s social media meltdown over fan criticism was infamous and legendary. I can’t understand why that didn’t disqualify him. If he’s given anything close to the opportunity to do that again with “Star Trek 3” (i.e. if his social media interactions aren’t heavily monitored and managed), he is living a charmed life, indeed.

    I appreciate that there’s a certain “proof in the pudding” aspect to this, insofar as Abrams and Paramount did hire him. However, there are enough items pointing toward his being a poor candidate that it was mentioned in much of the film business press that his hiring was an unusual and unexpected choice. Clearly we don’t agree, but I – and I’m not alone in this – think the preponderance of evidence is that he was hired against conventional wisdom.

    As to the relevance to this discussion, again, being a man in Hollywood makes it orders of magnitude easier to be that kind of unorthodox choice. (Actually hiring a woman would be its own kind of unorthodox choice, which is itself ridiculous.) What I’m wondering now is this: even if the Orci/Star Trek situation isn’t the “best” example, it’s still part and parcel with the overall problem. So, why are you concern trolling that choice of example? There’s a lot of daylight between not presenting the best evidence, and presenting contradictory evidence.

  • Ace Stephens

    I am aware that, for Orci, who he knows is seemingly far more vital than what he knows. It couldn’t be any more apparent given the generally-perceived quality – outside of “Hollywood circles” and some members of “general audiences” – of his output. That doesn’t change that, given his ties to the production, related experience and his desire, it makes perfect sense from the perspective of those with power to give him the position. I imagine they had him direct a short film or the like first (which may never be spoken of nor see the light of day) in order to show them he could direct on some level – as this is fairly common when someone who hasn’t directed before is hired to direct a major franchise entry.

    As for the television thing, I pointed out that difference regarding budget and similar – but the point remained that these people were known to the production and, while inexperienced, aware to a large degree of what was necessary for the position. And, regarding the Shane Black thing, I said the studio ultimately wouldn’t see it as being very different (plus, Black did work on the Iron Man films previously – as far as I’m aware, uncredited). You are apparently assuming I’m saying I don’t see it as different. But I never put forward that it was truly analogous in my view. But it appears it does make sense to be viewed as similar, from a studio perspective, within their view. They have a tendency to see the formula and the connections but rarely the substance…(hence, why we have a lot of relative “newcomer” directors – to the world of big budget filmmaking, at least – helming blockbusters recently…such as in the case of Godzilla or Fantastic Four…yet those go ignored in this instance while someone being “promoted from within” is cited despite the numerous disparate elements which directly led to that…)…

    Regarding his presence on social media, my understanding was that Orci was essentially done with it.

    Within the notion that he was hired against conventional wisdom, I completely disagree. That’s trade paper drama (they’re well-aware of the hatred many have for him), not the backstage politics that Orci clearly deals in and which lead to a lot of the deals in Hollywood. I mean, do you think after two successful films that they’re going to jettison the guy who wrote all of these blockbusters when the main producers and others behind the scenes all know him personally and know he knows the work and he’s offering to direct (probably for a whole lot cheaper than most any others because, well, he hasn’t done it before)? That just doesn’t make sense. No matter how much, “Wait, he’s controversial, a lot of major fans don’t like some of the stuff he did…he doesn’t have immediate past experience and…well, this would be weird!” stuff some people bandy about.

    What’s with the use of the term “concern trolling”? I am legitimately trying to point out that I don’t feel an example is a very good one because I think it weakens an argument that is otherwise completely valid. As you pointed out, his being a man probably helped him in many of these regards but – as I keep stressing, there is a notably large difference between when someone is promoted from within versus when someone is selected from the field in general.

  • So ignore if someone is being reasonable or trying to help you

    I don’t need your “help.”

  • Wall of text much?

    in an effort to disparage me or write off the validity of my views

    We told you why we didn’t think your views were valid. And then you kept pushing them by repeating them. That’s when your behavior and attitude became an issue.

    Unfortunately, given the cynical nature of many online, this means I can’t just say, “I want to help.”

    You might want to avoid that because it is damned condescending.

  • Dr. Rocketscience

    You are apparently assuming I’m saying I don’t see it as different. But I never put forward that it was truly analogous in my view.

    That’s a little weaselly, don’t you think? Just own your opinions.

    Regarding Orci’s presence on social media, my understanding was that he was essentially done with it.

    Heh. And if you think, with an ego like he displayed, that he’s doing so of his own volition, I got a bridge to sell you.

    there is a notably large difference between when someone is promoted from within versus when someone is selected from the field in general.

    Are you further trying to argue that that difference somehow levels the gender playing field? Because, if so, bullshit. Or at least, I’m gonna have to ask for more than your repeated (and wordy-to-the-point-of-unreadability) assertions to that effect.

  • Ace Stephens

    It’s not weaselly. Many here are apparently so cynical, they ignore what I’m actually saying (I pointed toward what the studio likely thought as why they felt justified in making the choice they did.) in favor of something insidious they’ve assumed that I must have “really” meant. And, obviously, wish to ignore when I say I didn’t mean that.

    I agree that Orci isn’t stopping his involvement with social media because he simply decided to. It is a means of more closely conforming to Hollywood standards by avoiding unnecessary controversy (not the “any publicity is good publicity” kind – he’s more the ship-sinking sort).

    I’m not arguing that the differences between Orci’s situation and the usual one for director-selection levels the gender playing field – but it still means this was an odd example and likely a bad one to exemplify the problem at large. There is just as big of a difference – if not bigger in many cases – between someone (with related experience) being promoted from within and there being an open field as there is between hiring someone with experience in the specific field and hiring someone without it (with related experience). If one’s example that’s apparently meant to be indicative of an overall problem regarding “the general rules” has a half-dozen things that make it an exception to “the general rules,” one would think it is, at minimum, probably not a very good example of that problem.

  • The oh-so reasonable defense you keep posting for Orci being handed a *huge* job he doesn’t even have *tiny* experience doing is a gorgeous explanation of what “old boys club” means.

  • SNusbaumer

    what a moron

Pin It on Pinterest