I’m “biast” (con): nothing
(what is this about? see my critic’s minifesto)
Behold the relic from the distant past! No, not “Mr. Link” (the voice of Zach Galifianakis: The Lego Batman Movie, Keeping Up with the Joneses), a sasquatch of the Pacific Northwest, but the Victorian-era adventurer who “discovers” him, Sir Lionel Frost (the voice of Hugh Jackman: The Front Runner, Logan). A cruel, selfish bully, he is on a quest to prove his “worth” to a London gentlemen’s club for adventurers by bringing a mythic monster before its members, in order that they might admit him, and now he has decided that the sasquatch will suffice.
Perhaps it’s meant to be ironic or amusing that the giant fur-covered Mr. Link — who is gentle, thoughtful, and eloquent, if also often faux-pas-ishly literal and naive — is, without question, a better person than Frost. But there’s little sense that Missing Link intends us to empathize overly with Mr. Link: his is but the childlike perspective through which the presumed primary viewer of this animated movie — you know, for children — should observe the quite literally cartoonishly awful Sir Lionel as he is guided toward being a better person. And of course I do not mean a better person by today’s standards. I mean by the standards of the 1880s in which this story is apparently set: Lionel is a man very much of his awful era — bigoted, self-centered, authoritarian — who, with some nudging, will become a man whom his 1880s peers would consider either quite outrageously progressive indeed or outright insane. By the standards of the early 21st century — which is, I remind you, the moment in which this movie was conceived, produced, presented to us, and consumed — the new Lionel we are meant to cheer at movie’s end would be, at absolute best, an example of the minimal baseline for civilized behavior.
Shouldn’t we expect better from our movie heroes meant to move and inspire children? Unless we are meant to consider that adult men are themselves children who need to be molded into civilized creatures? (And people say that feminists hate men!)
Oh, and lest you are misled into thinking that it is sweet innocent outsider Mr. Link who somehow guides Sir Lionel toward his awakening as a pleasant human person, I am here to tell you that it is not. No, Missing Link is yet another example of that hideous misogynist nightmare that believes it is the job of a woman to push a man into behaving like a refined and cultivated human being. Here it is the widow of Frost’s former adventuring partner, Adelina Fortnight (the voice of Zoe Saldana: Avengers: Infinity War, I Kill Giants), who invites herself along on Sir Lionel’s quest even though she despises him (though later she will be suddenly charmed when he displays the teensiest bit of decency *barf*), because she has a map he needs and… well, there really is no reason for her to have invited herself along except that the movie needs her for the tedious chore of molding Lionel into a better man. (The movie thinks it’s subverting stereotypes with her, but it isn’t. A couple of wisecracks on her part while she serves in the same old supporting and supportive role does not constitute subversion.)
Go ahead: tell me I’m overthinking this, I’m making a mountain out of a molehill or looking for reasons to be offended. But you would be wrong. I’m not, and this garbage retro shit has got to stop.
This is where I’m supposed to say, Oh but the stop-motion animation from Laika — the studio that also gave us Kubo and the Two Strings, The Boxtrolls, and others — is lovely and it’s all just a rollicking good time for the family. But no. I mean, technically, the craft of the animation is fine. But to what end? Beyond the horrors of the “let’s force an adult man to grow up” running motif, this is a movie filled with crotch-injury “humor,” gay panic, “funny” “exotic” people, and perhaps the first-ever saloon brawl in a movie intended for kids. The overt plot, the one all about Sir Lionel’s quest to prove to the world that strange creatures exist, completely collapses, because he could have won his bet with the London gentleman’s club by presenting Mr. Link publicly before the press in New York and/or London, through which his and Mr. Link’s journey (to Tibet, for Reasons) takes them, which wouldn’t even detract from his personal journey toward becoming a less selfish person. (In fact, it could have worked as the spark for it.) It doesn’t even make sense that Mr. Link could disguise himself in public, which he does by donning human clothes. He is clearly not human, and there is no hiding it. But the movie doesn’t ever engage with this impossibility.
But this might be the worst thing going on in Missing Link, and it’s even more offensive than the “men will be children until women civilize them” crap. Writer-director Chris Butler (ParaNorman) sets up a would-be poignant backstory for Mr. Link, about how his world is disappearing (thanks to logging and general human encroachment on sasquatch lands) while that of homo sapiens is “getting bigger” in this expansionist era of scientific discovery and exploration. And the movie’s ultimate solution for this? It’s for him to assimilate into the human world, to forget where he comes from and pretend he is something that he is not. This is horrifically tragic… and Missing Link thinks it’s a triumph. That is ineffably sad, and no one here seems to appreciate that.
Once Johanson calls the 1880s “a truly awful era,” everything else in the review slots into place. What’s odd to me is that Raiders of the Lost Ark, which she adores, shares the same Victorian masculinist assumptions even though set 50 years later.
“Why do you think the stereotypical gender roles in this 2019 stop motion animated movie for children with an unpleasant protagonist and boring, nonsensical plot bother you so much when the stereotypical gender roles in a 1981 live action, genre defining adventure film with a charismatic protagonist and exciting, iconic action scenes don’t seem to bother you at all, at least I assume they don’t bother you at all because no one could possibly find elements of a movie that they loved almost forty years ago to be problematic today?”
Am I paraphrasing correctly?
Also, what widely released films in 1981 didn’t reinforce traditional gender roles? The Great Muppet Caper maybe a little bit… The Incredible Shrinking Woman, Heavy Metal? sort of barely… and um… that’s all I got. Mainstream 80’s culture was fairly regressive in comparison to the decades prior and after.
Why, it’s almost like two completely different movies are two completely different movie. Imagine that…
To MAJ. They aren’t completely different. Both involve the same kind of macho adventurer imposing his will on the surrounding world, while admired by an ex.
To Amanohyo. You are being more royalist than the queen. You would consider all 80s popular culture as regressive by modern standards and include Raiders in that condemnation. MAJ doesn’t; she tries to distinguish the two and sticks to her liking for Raiders. And Raiders was very much a children’s movie. They didn’t enjoy it with the same depth as the adult audience, because they wouldn’t be familiar with the older children’s movies it was based on, but the surface adventure taken at face value would entertain any group of (male) kids.
You saying it doesn’t make it so. I am not debating this with you.
Why… MaryAnn…. I would assume that you as an intellectual would actually content with the points he brought up. Ah, well. Since this is a different movie… Let me explain why you are completely wrong and need to get better at film criticism.
Now, claim number one: the main character of the story is an asshole who has no regard for others and that is not a good trope for a protagonist meant for children to look up to.
Simply put, if you paid attention, it’s EXPLICITLY made clear that you aren’t supposed to root for Sir Lionel. As you put it, he’s a “self-centered authoritarian” who is also “a man very much of his awful era”. In other words, the kind of asshole meant to learn the errors of his ways. This isn’t a hero’s journey story, this is an adventure comedy, and adventure story’s often have a character with a problematic attitude and behavior learn their failures as a person through their epic journey. Take for example, “Epic”. The main character is a rebellious kid who has problems with authority and expects to be treated with respect, but acts in very immature ways throughout the film until the final act, where he has to GET HIS SHIT TOGETHER. Stories are about characters who grow and mature through the events in their “lives” and through their interactions with others, not virtuously moralled paragons that you can root for 100 percent of the time, or even most of the time. If that were the case, there would be no plot AT ALL.
“And people say that feminists hate all men!”
…… not sure what your on about there. And, it really makes that statement mean nothing when you compare a character being a selfish asshole to a “child who needs to be molded into a civilized creature.” This is WHY people get that impression. Pay attention to what you write next time.
Number two: that the idea for making Zoe Saldana the one who changes Sir Lionel’s behavior is inherently sexist and misogynistic and that it needs to stop.
This was harder to examine because… well, this ultimately takes the well known concept of… aw, I don’t know…. SUPPORTING CAST MEMBERS. And just goes off on a rant about how sexist the mere IDEA of having her be the reason he changes behavior is. My favorite part of that entire segment is that in the very next paragraph, after all those dumbass statements of “MISOGYNY, HOW DARE YOU?”, the only counterpoint you bring up is the one that shatters your arguement completely when you bring it up, because it’s entirely correct, and you CLEARLY don’t even know what a SUPPORTING CAST is or what it’s for when making these statements of supposed shifting of responsibility on to the women, supposedly, and you address it so badly, that it really does show that you are indeed WHINING.
“Tell me I’m overthinking this, I’m making a mountain out of a molehill, or looking for reasons to be offended. But you would be wrong. I’m not…”
Essentially…
“No…” -certainly smart girl MaryAnn…
…………………………………..
BULLETPROOF REBUTALS!!!! CHECKMATE!!!!
Seem to be following the Ben Shapiro strategy of making content where you state “I’m TOTALLY right!”, but you just end up making a complete ass of yourself through ineptitude, there, buckaroo. You can’t even say why your readings are good or correct. All you can say is “No! I’m right already!” Now, in stories, it is often the love interest of the main character who is able to “MOLD THEM INTO A CIVILIZED CREATURE” because in stories, the asshole main character has to go through a major change in their etiquette in order to win affection, or has to be told that their behavior is not acceptable by an outsider. If anything, even though the two end up together, this movie actually shows a woman who won’t go have any shit from some entitled prick with a massive inferiority complex and a need to make wild claims and risk his public figure in order to feel smart, and actually hopes that he changes. She’s in a supporting role, sure, but it’s because she was made with the intent to support the lead protagonist. This isn’t sexism, let alone misogyny. This is basic writing. I’mma let you in on a writing trick. The characters who are not in the lead role are characters who exist for strictly story or comedic purposes. The fairy tale creatures in Shrek, for example, only exist to provide a reason why Shrek needs to care about anything involving Farquuad, which leads him to Fiona. They also show up later for small scale parts of future sequels to help the heroes get out of danger or prison (I’m not kidding, in the second movie, Shrek and two others are trapped in jail and have to be rescued). They exist only for comedic effect and to help the protagonist(s) out whenever necessary. That’s Zoe Saldana’s role. It’s also Mr. Links role as well. It’s a writing thing, not a misogyny thing. You COULD say it’s sexist by default, but that would require you being either inherently dense, politically biased, or an active lair.
Number three: crotch humor, gay panic, and “look at the funny natives”.
……….Crotch humor…………. I’d like to let you know something important. IT’S A FUCKING KIDS FILM!!!! MADE FOR KIDS!!!! WITH CHILD!! DRIVEN!! HUMOR!!! That’s a YOU thing that doesn’t speak to the overall quality of a film because comedy is INSANELY subjective. “Gay panic”. (Citation needed). I find it strange that you show a screen-cap of the “look at the funny native”, but don’t even quote the scenes of “gay panic”, or even show a fucking screen-cap either. The “funny natives” thing, I wouldn’t defend. That’s not okay. However, I still take it with a grain of salt. Show me a clip or quote the jokes made and then I’ll really believe it. And finally….. “Saloon-brawls in a kids movie”……. Ummm…. Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure, The Lego Movie, and Rango (hell, ESPECIALLY Rango) would like a word with you. Also, (citation needed).
Number four: The plot is unrealistic. There is no way that Mr. Link could blend in in any fashion. Also, it ends with Mr. Link embracing human culture, ultimately forgetting where he came from, being something he’s not.
Grow the fuck up, maybe? It’s a kids movie! Societies of hyper-evolved Sasquatch people exist and can talk, too! Of course it’s going to be absurd at times, you weirdo! Also, getting real, without anymore sarcasm, I’d like to address that last bit, because this is a really interesting talk to have. The idea that Mr. Link now has to go on with the knowledge that his is one of the last of his kind. Sadly, this is how life works. People come and go. And while this is truly heart-breaking, it makes it all the better when he comes out of it feeling at rest in his state of mind, knowing that it can get better. You never really truly forget where you came from when you go through life. Your traumas always stick around, and sometimes, they can eat you alive on the inside. But, life goes on, with or without you, and as sad as it is, to see this cruel reality, that Mr. Link is now one of the last of his people, if not THE last, that’s the point. It shows this scene briefly because it’s ultimately there to give a more nuance behind Mr. Link, and unless you’re hyper-focused on realism in kids movies and want your CHILD audience to leave the theater sad, it’s a GOOD thing that he finds happiness living amongst people who’ve accepted him for himself, even if he has to dress up. Nothing’s changed. He’s able to pass as a human and act like one, so nothing has changed. His personality isn’t truly altered. Now, Mr. Link has a new start to a new life with people who he can call his true family. His traumas may never go away, but he can cope with it now that he has support from new people who care about him. That’s not a bad thing. It’s a GREAT thing.
I’m honestly of the belief that you did not like this film purely out of political and ideological bias. Which is fine if you don’t, just own up to it and don’t lie with “you can see it, I’m not lying”. And when someone tells you that your wrong, don’t make excuses. Argue with the points made. Otherwise, you make yourself look worse, and it proves you to be a hypocrite when you claim “I’m not whining”, and yet, you have to say “no” when an opposing view is held by someone else that could shatter your arguement.
Do not post walls of text at my site.
Yeah, I’ll get right on that.
Seems as if the bingo card doesn’t like me, who’d have thunk it? Therefore, I’m going to assume you didn’t read my initial reply and now, I shall tear into your review for a second time. While I could systematically own you for all the seemingly stupid things you say throughout this review like I did last time, I’m going to set myself the goal of ensuring that you see this and that I get a response by looking at the central arguements and seeing if at least THEY hold water, because I’d rather do that than… get a comment taken down for… a bunch of strawman arguements that no idiot would really use for a civilized debate. And I don’t want to straw man anyway, and I felt like I did that in my previous response, so I’mma try to be more decent this time around. So, before I continue, I apologize for the previous response and it’s abrasive tone. It would seem as if your central claims are that the movie should at the very least have the decency to not have the lead male be such a dickhead, that shifting responsibility for his growth as an individual on a female character is sexist and misogynist, and has to go, and finally that the movie glosses over touchy subjects and makes bad or touchy jokes.
Let’s address the final one, because it’s easier to dismiss. Crotch humor does not make a movie bad. That’s a you thing that doesn’t affect the overall quality of the film. There really is no gay panic in the film that I see, and even if there was, it was so subtle that I couldn’t even spot it or get offended by it anyway. If there is, show the reader, like you did with the “laughing at the funny-looking natives” thing. That native joke, though, I’d say is rather subjective. I don’t remember the exact jokes made about the natives, but I really didn’t find much wrong with them, and even remember laughing at some of them. Admittedly, it’s rather easy for me to do so, because I’m a colored person myself, so neutral “funny-looking native” jokes are rather trivial for me. For me, old school Peter Pan “What Makes The Red Man Red” “JOKES” bother me and should be condemned. I suppose I’ll just have to rewatch that scene.
Now, then, there’s also the complaint that if the film were written with the standards that people have today for basic human decency, Sir Lionel would be at least a tiny bit likable and not so ghoulishly authoritarian and selfish. Now, I said this before, but, let’s say it again and be more direct. The idea of this trope being bad is nonsense. Films like Tangled, Moana, and Zootopia have been being applauded by even the most woke creators I’ve ever seen, and also the most regressive people I’ve ever seen, and they were applauding those films for the actual quality of the movies as a whole, not by what tropes they engaged in. If they were critiqued like that, than nobody would be praising them, because they ALL have a shit-attitude male character who is ended up being fixed by the female character, and you could argue that the first two were far WORSE than Sir Lionel, Maui, Nick Wylde, and Flynn Rider. And while I do agree with you that there should be more positive role models for kids to look up to, I would argue that THIS is a great lesson for kids: the idea that when your an ass to the people around you, you will get a dressing down for it by others, and you can either fix it, and people will like you and want to be around you, or you do nothing about it, and people won’t like you.
Now, the final point, that it should not be the job of a woman to correct a man’s behavior and that this trope is inherently sexist and misogynistic. It’s not. It’s a common trope among a lot of things, and mediums that engage in bigotry do not often preach it or stand for it (in almost 98 percent of cases. It’s important to note, THIS CAN BE THE CASE OCCASIONALLY, but it often doesn’t happen). Take for example The Big Bang Theory or All In The Family. Your not expected to sympathize with Archie Bunker for his rascism, as shown when everyone around him gives him a dressing down for it. Your not expected to sympathize with Howard, Leonard, and Raj’s early season misogyny, as shown when they are constantly punished for it. The Big Bang Theory, specifically. Display sexism? You’ll get everything from disgusted looks, to verbal lashings, to physical consequences. Now, this doesn’t happen in Missing Link, for obvious reasons, but his behavior is still discouraged and he still changes. I sincerely don’t understand how this is a bad trope, anyway. It’s often more relaxing to see bad behavior discouraged. Imagine if all of our protagonists were absolute paragons? No film would be exciting. We wouldn’t have gotten Captain America: Civil War if that were the case, or really any fun films like that.
https://youtu.be/X3-hOigoxHs
https://youtu.be/7L7NRONADJ4
i have had trouble with TBBT since it’s inception because of how it treats women and especially women geeks. there’s no doubt some of it is funny because some of it is true… but there’s an awful lot of simply outdated misogyny in this show. i’ve stopped watching ages ago.
I get it if you have issues with that behavior, but the fact is, every time something like that happens, whoever the perpetrator is gets punished for it. They’re attempting to silence my criticism of this review by spamming with that nonsense when I stated that mediums that engage in terrible behavior very often DO NOT support it. When using TBBT as an example, he used these shit think peices to silence every bit of what I said. But if you don’t like it, more power to ya.
These think peices still do not content with the fact that every single instance of misogyny in The Big Bang Theory is followed up almost immediately by consequences. And that those said consequences invoke a lot of laughter. They just write them off as lamp shading and even scrub the details of scenes they talk about. I can only assume that you didn’t watch the show. And again, not everything that engages in bad behavior supports it. You AREN’T expected to sympathize with Howard, Leonard, and Raj, because they are ALWAYS punished for the shit they try to pull. Those are the most diabolically lazy think pieces I’ve ever seen, and that’s intentional. You wouldn’t know how much complete is bullshit coming out of those think peices unless you watched beyond the first episode and the cherrypicked clips you may have already seen on YouTube. It’s called deceptive editing, where somebody will edit bits out of context, talk over peices of what they show, cherrypick scenes and cut off early before you see the actual context of the scene. Take for example, almost all of the videos made by ThunderF00T about Anita Sarkeesian. You won’t know that he’s putting audio over scenes he displays of her saying something he believes is stupid, and you won’t know that he is taking scenes out of context to mean whatever he thinks it’s about unless you actually watch the video, and if you did, you’d know he’s fucking lying. Before you watch and believe anything being about something being about sexism, or misogyny, watch the series and get the context, because often, people who make videos will be slimy when they present something for you to digest.
I’m pretty sure you’re expected to sympathize with the main characters in the show. I’ve seen many episodes, and there are three main perspectives that are catered to:
1) “Haha, look at how nerdy and pathetic these guys are when they try to do “manly” things and how strange and funny their weird, esoteric, geeky hobbies and jargon are.”
2) “Actually, these geeky, smart guys have emotions just like you and me – they just want love and acceptance and success just like us normal people, awww how cute.”
3) “These geeky boyfriends and their high jinks sure are a handful eh my fellow ladies? Guess we’ll just teach them how to be more normal because we love ’em so much!”
They are “punished” in the sense that mishaps occur, and the audience is meant to laugh at the unpleasant, awkward situations they find themselves in, but the show never settles completely into perspective 1), it always reverts to the run of the mill sitcom-ish 2) with supporting scenes of 3).
The misogyny is rarely as over the top as something like Family Guy, but the main characters are definitely not punished for their casual “dudes be like this, but chicks be like this,” sexism. They all have successful, stable careers and loving relationships with the exception of Raj, who nonetheless has a string of attractive romantic partners.
I suppose Sheldon has become slightly less assholish and self-centered, but the audience is meant to sympathize with him throughout his personal journey of becoming barely tolerable. When he ridicules and marginalizes stereotypical feminine activities and values, it’s less “aww how adorable, this geeky guy doesn’t understand why women like clothes, musicals, make-up, talking about their feelings, and reality TV,” and more, “hell yeah Sheldon, tell it like it is! That girly stuff is stupid! Physics, comic books, and video games are what’s really important!”
At least, that’s the impression I get. It’s been a few years since I watched the show, maybe it’s gotten better? What does all of this BBT talk have to do with the movie though? Are you saying that we are not meant to identify and sympathize with Sir Frost’s personal journey, and/or that he is not rewarded? It would be helpful if you told us why you liked the movie, and what you found entertaining or interesting. Laika is a very talented studio, and on a purely technical level, I’m continually amazed at what they are able to accomplish. Did you think this story was an engaging as the stories of Kubo and/or Coraline?
Simply put, Missing Link is rather innocent and funny. I liked Family Guy for the same reason. I’m the kind of simpleton who will laugh at fart jokes. And yes. I don’t think that sympathizing or relating to any characters in fiction make a work good. Hannibal Lector is considered to be the greatest character ever written by many. Can you even MARGINALLY relate to HANNIBAL FUCKING LECTOR? Or Jason Vorheese? I am of the belief that Laika needs more movies like Kubo And The Two Strings and Missing Link, not Coraline and Paranorman. Coraline scared the shit out of me as a kid and Paranorman was just not all that interesting for me just because I’ve seen it before. This film is rather grounded and Mr. Link is absolutely adorable. The film is kept for children and even though it touches slightly on heavy subjects, it never loses it tone. And the reason why the movie was REALLY good for me is for the reason MaryAnn hates it. Near halfway through the movie, it’s revealed that because of scientific expeditions, Mr. Link is now the last of his kind. She states that it’s sad that he has to “pretend to be something he is not, and the film sees that as a triumph”. But that’s bullshit. The idea is that life goes on, and despite your traumas, you can deal with this. You remember the old saying “when you hit rock bottom, the only way to go from his is up all over again”? It’s that. Mr. Link isn’t going to pretend to be something he’s not, because he has literally nothing other than his race to hide. He’s human-passing as long as he’s in a suit, and he’s entirely verbal, and can even understand humor. He can act as himself. The claim that he’d be forgetting who he is is also nonsense. You never really forget where you come from in life and the people who do are people who never saw the good in where they were, only where they ARE. I discussed TBBT as an example of the idea that even when something may engage in sexism or rascism, that doesn’t mean it supports it.
Now, these points about TBBT, I could totally see why you feel that way. There are totally people who are rather geeky and are considered “BEHTA” males, and normally, I would sympathize with the show’s geeks and be far more vocal about the idiocy of “alpha-BEHTA” mentality presented in fiction and real life. BUT, that’s only when you strip the context out COMPLETELY and only look at some show laughing at nerds, and, just like in Family Guy, the people who are like the main four characters, Sheldon, Leonard, Howard, and Raj are really…well, losers. Which is why you laugh at them and their mishaps, like, getting verbal lashings, disassociation or broken noses. It’s shcadenfreude. The show painfully goes to ridiculous lengths to show just how pathetic they are, even showing Howard expecting Bernadette to be his essential “mother”, and…well, here’s the quotes.
B: Excuse me, but I’m not going to be your mother.
Context: Howard thouroughly expected her to do things like take him to his dentist appointments among others that his mother does.
H: Where did you get that impression?
This indicates that Howard REALLY thinks that women and girlfriends will do things that mothers do without complaint.
Consequence: Howard gets kicked out of the house. And is not allowed to move in with her for many months.
And they are still always humiliated for their behavior by their lovers, and even though those comments still exist, it explains to you why they are viewed as losers. The things they say and do that people say are sexist are the reason why you laugh at them. Just like the gag with Peter Griffin getting hit in the crotch with an bag of nickels for a straight 2 minutes. The fact that he’s a jackass makes it all the more awesome. This is a conclusion that you wouldn’t come to when you look at The Adorkable Misogyny Of The Big Bang Theory because it flat out IGNORES these scenes, and will even deliberately scrub away important context of the scenes it talks about. It’s been getting A LOT better, but if you don’t like that, you don’t like that. This is proof that a work of fiction is good. One should be glad that the jackass Sir Lionel changes his behavior when someone holds him accountable for his shit behavior. And, often, the reason why this happens is because it’s better to have a movie about a person who grows and matures, not a paragon who you can root for 100 percent of the time. It’s why people liked Captain America: Civil War more than they like DragonBall fucking Z. Because people like Tony Stark and Steven Rodgers more than Goku the Worst Father Ever and Vegeta the Genocidal, Eugenics-Loving Asshole, who are in the right almost ALWAYS because the story requires it. The thing is, almost ALL the overwhelmingly critically praised girl-powered kids movies over the past 4 years have been doing this. Moana did it with Maui the Egotist. Zootopia did it with Nick the Dick Who Cons People Who Are Nice To Him. Tangled did it with Flynn Rider the Thief. And those were all great movies. It would be sexist if other characters told Zoe Saldana to fix Sir Lionel’s behavior, and that doesn’t happen. The most telling piece of evidence that this complaint holds no water is the fact that the only counter to the arguement “I’m making mountains out of molehills, you say” is… No. That’s the most she says about why that point is wrong. No.
There are many, many people who like Dragon Ball Z as much or more than Captain America for reasons that have nothing to do with whether or not the characters undergo a personal change. For example, many people are motivated primarily by a desire to become more powerful and respected rather than a desire to discover subjective inner truths, and they gravitate towards shows with similar values.
Anyway, let’s work our way back toward the topic – the audience isn’t meant to see the main characters of BBT or Family Guy as losers that they should be laughing at (with the exception of Meg). If the shows were based in schadenfreude, the culmination of most scenes would be punishment and comeuppance; however, the resolution of plot lines is typically sentimental love, understanding, and acceptance. Most of the audience is not rooting for the couples in BBT to break up or become more miserable, and I’ve encountered dozens of people who unironically say “Giggity” and quote Stewie or Peter. They’re not laughing at these characters for being pathetic and sexist. The sexism is presented as an unchanging matter of fact – “this is the way the world is, this is the way men and women are different, isn’t it funny, and aren’t we outrageous for telling it like it is?”
At a large corporate site with critics who receive perks and access from certain studios, or at sites owned by a company that also owns certain studios, you’d be justified in being suspicious of some early reviews, but MA is an independent critic with a long history of professional integrity. She has no reason to lie or intentionally take things out of context – we come here because she provides her honest reactions and thoughts with the understanding that we won’t share all of them. She’s not wrong for disliking this movie just as you’re not wrong for liking it.
Thank you for explaining below why you enjoyed the innocence and gentle humor of the film and its lesson of staying positive, resilient, and connected even when life is rough. That’s the core of your comment – all the other thoughts helped you reach that core, but including them weakens your message.
Obviously I too suffer from chronic logorrhea, and my mind jumps awkwardly from topic to topic like yours – I find it’s helpful to organize my thoughts into smaller paragraphs and lists so the point doesn’t get completely lost and repeatedly ask myself, “What am I trying to accomplish with this comment?” “Why did I have an emotional reaction to this?” “How do these ideas relate to the ideas presented in the review?” Focus on those questions, skim what you’ve typed and skip/delete the extraneous and redundant thoughts, and you’ll end up with a more helpful, positive, and accessible comment.
That still doesn’t change the fact that the story is bad. Brute force conflicts are boring. Civil War was objectively better than DragonBall Z because it wasn’t just a four hour long fight scene, it was a story that forced you to pick a side, and it’s possible to be either Team Cap OR Team Iron Man because both teams make enough good points that you can root for either. DragonBall has never done that, because it doesn’t have the balls for that.
I still don’t really think you are. Most scenes are punishment and comeuppance. Any time sexist behavior is displayed, it invokes consequences. Engage in bullying? Someone’ll notice and not keep quiet about it. Display sexist behavior? You get a broken nose. I do respect your views enough, though, that I’ll take a look at the show one more time looking for what your telling me before commenting any further on TBBT. And almost every episode of Family Guy is about the fact that everyone on spooner street is an asshole. Everyone laughs at Meg because they’re assholes. And that’s funny as shit. But the show is also about really lowbrow jokes and mimicry to drive home a salient point. To showcase how stupid anti-vaccers are, the show decides to make Lois and Peter into anti-vaccinations. To showcase just how stupid “white genocide” believers are, the show atributes this exact sentiment to Peter Griffin.
“Black racism is the number one problem facing this country today.”
By having this idiot say it with a totally straight face, it’s made fun of those people in spades. The show is about jackasses, and that’s why I find it funny. That’s not to say that every joke is good or acceptable, but I’m not going to throw it away because of bad jokes. I can’t speak for people who quote those idiots, because I really don’t like Stewie and Brian as much as other people do. I assume it’s for the same reason people quote South Park. Which is the show that ACTUALLY does that “AREN’T WE SMART?!?! THIS IS STUPID!!!WANTING TO BE TRANS IS LIKE WANTING TO TRANSFORM INTO A DOLPHIN!!!I’M SO SMAAAART” in spades.
I just found this review not even a week ago, and I came here expecting the quality of the film to be criticized by an awesome critic, because I took a look at her review of Captain Marvel and I overall thought it was fairly decent, especially since I never really had an interest in it, and hearing from a professional critic that the film was nice made me feel a little bit better about trying it out. But it was a lot of wrong conclusions that aren’t even defended by anything other than “no, I’m not making it up.” If I knew why she believes it’s true outside of “I’m not looking too much into it”, than I wouldn’t be saying shit. You explained INCREDIBLY well how you feel about TBBT and Family Guy, and even though I didn’t see the sexism presented the way you do, now I know what to look for when watching those shows and I have a better understanding of what it is I’m consuming. Complaints of how it’s sexist to have Zoe Saldana fix Sir Lionel’s behavior without elaborating how exactly she’s right for believing it makes me all the less convinced.
You’re welcome. And thanks for that advice. And apologies for seeming so abrasive towards you. I have really never thought of The Big Bang Theory that way before. I’ll look into that.
NOTE: UPON REFLECTION, DICARD EVERY BIT OF JUNK I SAID ABOUT THE BIG BANG THEORY IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH. I’M GOING TO LOOK INTO IT, SO DISREGARD EVERYTHING ABOUT IT.
There is nothing objective in your opinion.
I am not your feminist mommy, and I am not going to hold your hand through your education in feminism (assuming that you even want one, which I doubt). Read more feminist film criticism. Read more of my writing here at this site. I have written EXTENSIVELY on the representation of women onscreen, and PARTICULARLY about the problematic tropes of how women are depicted. You can start here:
https://www.flickfilosopher.com/2016/04/where-are-the-women-rating-criteria-explained.html
“I’m not your feminist mommy.”
I’m aware of that fact. I even said, if there were an explanation, not even a big one, but any, I wouldn’t say shit. Even just that link after “But you would be wrong” would’ve made me fuck off. And reading that… well, I’m glad I did. That’s actually rather interesting. I see now what you mean. Fucking golf clap. That’s actually a rather interesting take on the trope of women supporting only men and nothing being done for themselves. I applaud that. I would totally like a feminist education. Would you be willing to link me to any more of your reviews to get me started?
You’re right here at my site. Click around.
If you don’t like the show for casual sexist comments like that, that’s fine. A lot of people don’t like that. But every time something happens to one of the characters or someone laughs at them, it’s for reasons totally justified. Raj, Leonard, and Howard are all losers who, in the early seasons, ARE misogynistic, and the show actively shows you why you don’t root for them. Even in spite of this, however, they are always punished, and after almost a few seasons of their terrible behavior being actively punished, they stopped doing the terrible things. I do not begrudge you for not liking those comments in the show, however. I don’t expect you to watch anymore of it. The talk of TBBT started for reasons that you got totally accurate. I do mean that you aren’t supposed to sympathize with this dude. That’s why the movie exists. Because it’s about a snob who needs to learn the errors of his self-destructive ways about life. There’s a reason that people don’t make movies about absolute paragons. Because then no conflict would arrive.
I loved this movie because of just how innocent it was. It was a delight seeing a movie that didn’t need to scare the shit out of it’s audience (Coraline) and it didn’t have to bank on ghosts and zombies to sell (Paranorman). Both of those films were engaging and I love them, but this film I love more because it’s so… nice. To get a film as innocent as this is a blessing, considering that every new creator has been going the way of the dodo chasing high stakes, continuity, and lore. I loved the jokes, too. Though, admittedly, my standards for comedy are rather low. It succeeds in what it wants to be, a very innocent kids film. What I found incredibly interesting, though, more interesting than Kubo and Coraline, was the realization of Mr. Link being the last of his kind. Ms. Johansson doesn’t think it’s a good ending, but I find it rather fantastic simply because it has a great lesson for kids: life may kick you hard, but provided that you have people by your side, you can adjust. You can deal with this. You can go on. She states that it’s forcing Mr. Link to be something he’s not, but he isn’t being forced to be anything other than looking human, which is as simple as putting on a suit. That’s a lovely thing because he can still talk, he can still interact with people very well, and he has people who care. It’s a new beginning for him that only yields wonders, not a new prison. I don’t believe any bit of this film having misogyny, not one bit, but I could be really wrong. The time to believe that though would be when there’s evidence for how bad it’s affecting people. I’ve seen many children utterly inspired by the girls who show that they take no shit from some guy, like this movie does, but I guess that was because people told them that’s what it was. I really don’t know at this point.
Also, I don’t get what that disproves in my arguement. I can only assume you marked it as spam because I stated that the “look at the funny people” joke was rather subjective in terms of offensiveness because I’m brown. If you can tell me why you spammed it, it would do wonders.
Your comments are getting tagged as spam by Disqus because they are long rambling walls of text. Don’t post comments like this. If you feel the need to go on like this, get your own site and post your writings there.
Okay. I understand. I’ll keep them straight to the point next time. Sincere apologies for that.
Whoof. The integration subplot reminds me a lot of Ghibli’s Pom Poko, where the integration is addressed in a far more interesting and bittersweet manner. Perhaps I’ll re-watch that, instead. (or pick up one of Laika’s much better films on Blu Ray)
Or maybe it’s bait? This is made by people in Hollywood, after all, who don’t see many examples of civilised behaviour since they can’t observe women in any way other than to evaluate their sexiness. See, they say, you don’t to change all that much, and eventually you might even be able to rejoin modern civilisation rather than just cling on to the sides of your own shrinking pocket of Old Timey Macho Bullshit with the rest of the bullies.
Well, that’s truly disappointing. I can’t even believe the writer/director of ParaNorman made a movie like what you describe here. ParaNorman was thoughtful, heartfelt, and broke down tropes in interesting ways. And was LGBTQ-friendly, to boot. While THIS movie sounds like it just trudges through tired, sexist tropes. (AND there’s a gay panic moment? WTH???)
Why should characters of 1880s act according to the “norms” of 2019? If anything, it shows realism.
Lionel also held Adelina to find peace in her heart, so I guess their relationships were beneficial, not one-sided.
I’m very intrested in your critique of a final. What else Susan could do when relatives denied him? Assilimilation is better than lone death, and it’s showed that he loves travelling with Frost and seeing other rare creatures like him.
Personally, I’m so sick of this “think of the children” argument. This movie clearly wasn’t designed for children only, as well as the rest of Laika movies. Secondly, most kids will see the movie with parents who could explain the point of movie and some questionable scenes.
You’re stumping for realism in a movie about Bigfoot?
The story could have been constructed differently so that this wasn’t the only option.
Haha! Yeah, like no adults have internalized the toxic ideas this movie promulgates.
It would be strange if creators of a movie who delved so much into recreating Victorian age graphically decided to drop realism in order to be “politically correct” with chararcters and their motivations. It works to create atmosphere in the movie, a desire of exploring. Without it, the main conflict would make no sense.
Unfortunately, a relic is a relic, no matter how the writer could turn the plot. I guess working with new, improved Lionel was kinda middle ground between snobbish colonizers and too conservative natives.
If I had to choose between a movie about period of history with some questionable (according to modern consensus) moral and watered down history film with non-offensive moral, I would have chosen first option.
I actually agree with a portion of your argument. In a movie about Bigfoot, the other details of the plot need to be as realistic as possible, to make the outlandish elements seem more believable.
But imagine this: Laika makes a film set in the American South, just before the Civil War. The main character is a slave owner named Cyrus. Through an unlikely series of events, he goes off on an adventure together with one of his slaves. Thrilling and comical incidents occur, they rescue each other from danger, and when they get back home, Cyrus decides to free the slave. At the end of the movie, Cyrus still owns dozens of other slaves, and the former slave is going to face a lifetime of poverty and oppression, but the audience gets a feel-good message about freedom.
That story would be “realistic” for its time period. Parents could explain the history of slavery to their children, turning the most horrific parts of the movie into a “teachable moment.” But many people would still consider the movie to be in very bad taste.
Fortunately, Laika has no obligation to make that movie. The filmmakers could say: “If we’re going to tell a story about slavery, let’s make the main character a member of the Underground Railroad.” Or they could say: “A children’s movie about slavery is a terrible idea. Let’s tell a different story instead.”
If the makers of this film were concerned with “realism,” they should have looked into when Washington became a state and what a map of the US looked like at the time in which the movie is set.
Spoiler: They were not concerned with realism.