Birds of Prey (2020)

[jayman3]

Originally Posted by CelluloidPal

But here's the real question at this point. WHO CARES? This is just getting tired and getting old real fast.
As I said before, this is not the place for any of this. This is a board about THE MOVIES. Not some sociopolitical platform, period.
And as I also said before, take all of this elsewhere because it does not belong here.
Now can we get back to discussing the movie itself? Please?

But wasn't that the purpose of the user who originally posted the article which specifically has to do with the movie itself

Originally Posted by ben6543

"Birds of Prey" will be rated R and "less male gaze-y."

https://www.comicbookmovie.com/birds...x2fXXgMkTytSwQ

"That’s what happens when you have a female producer, director, writer," the movie's costume designer, Erin Benach, noted before Robbie added: "Yeah, it’s definitely less male gaze–y."

So, we are technically talking about the contents of the movie, no?

Which means it certainly belongs in here if what is being discussed is the subject of said film.

[CelluloidPal]

Originally Posted by jayman3

So, we are technically talking about the contents of the movie, no?

Which means it certainly belongs in here if what is being discussed is the subject of said film.

It doesn't. It's clear that it was posted to rile things up over here. It has zilch to do with the movie itself at all.

[Chedwiggen]

Personally I'd be happy with Harley being covered from head to toe in her Jester outfit anything other then that she wears I don't care about. I love DC characters so hopefully this turns out good.

[CelluloidPal]

Originally Posted by Chedwiggen

Personally I'd be happy with Harley being covered from head to toe in her Jester outfit anything other then that she wears I don't care about. I love DC characters so hopefully this turns out good.

Isn't that Harley's trademark?

[phobicsquirrel]

Originally Posted by jayman3

Isn't that because there is more sexualization of the female body in media than there is for males?

Wasn't that a complaint about Game of Thrones and then the female nudity wasn't as gratuitous followed by an uptick of frontal male nudity?

Who cares about shirtless muscular men. Have them filmed with showing bare ass or full on dick's out on screen the same way women are portrayed in film with breasts and bare butt exposed more than you see with men.

Breasts aren't equal to a gentlemans sausage, sorry. Only Americans seem to think that showing breasts is nudity, it's not and is the same as showing male chests. Though, theres been a huge increase in male shirtless scenes compared to the female variety especially because it's become the norm for these pg13 hero films. The whole thing about bringing up less sexualization is to stir the pot and get publicity. If nothing was said about it then no one would care but the actress said it because she wanted to make a political statement even though it is very stereotypical.

It kind of reminds me of the sillyness from batman and Robin with the nipple suits and butt shots, do that today and oh boy! I do remember the nipple suits getting plenty of jokes though.

[jayman3]

Originally Posted by CelluloidPal

It doesn't. It's clear that it was posted to rile things up over here. It has zilch to do with the movie itself at all.

Okay.

Moving on.

Nothing to see here, folks...

[phobicsquirrel]

Smith held the first film imo, without him and all the changes being made I'm not sure it will do that well. Then again the DC films lately have been doing okay even though I thought they were poor. I'm obviously more critical of films than the cookie cutter loving public.

[miribeau]

Originally Posted by jayman3

....
You’re over here talking like you thirsting for the female body and have no self control over your actions.

I’m noticing a very disturbing trend in these forums. There’s a lot of toxic masculinity on this website. Not to mention advocacy of rape culture and victim blaming...

No one here is claiming an uncontrollable thirst for the female body. A few have dared to be honest about what, precisely, they are paying for, when they pay to see one movie over another movie. As to rape culture, I'm sorry to have to inform you that you are misusing the term. Rape culture refers to a culture fostering rape, such as images of a fashion model being stuffed into a trunk or appearing to be dead while a man moves all over her. It does not refer to the general appreciation of the human form, even when sexualized. I get what you are saying and understand that you have a lot invested in your feelings on the topic and that's why I'm taking a moment to explain the difference for you. I can't tell you how many people have humiliated themselves in conference when misusing the term and, in doing so, have lost the ear of the audience. To be taken seriously, never conflate normal, natural sexuality, such as my dearest lesbian friend being upset at not getting to see a bit more of that costume from Suicide Squad, with rape culture. She is not a rapist nor would she ever condone such a thing. I hope you get the difference.

To show my support of those declaring their interest in Robbie, I will acknowledge something that could bite me in the behind at work. I wouldn't have paid so much to see Aquaman, followed by paying another "so much" to purchase that blu, day one, if Jason Momoa wasn't Jason Momoa and his God given beauty had been covered up. As much as I love Frontier, and virtually everything about it, I appreciate how attractive he is, on screen, off screen, what have you. I am not a lecherous soul, nor am I an unfaithful sort, and, for the record, I adore his wife as a human being, so he's in no danger from me. But, if he were single, he'd still be in no danger from me. I'm not seeking to objectify him. I've never touched him inappropriately, nor would I even consider doing such a thing. He's a nice guy. Still, going back in time to that first time I saw him, I still wouldn't have done anything inappropriate. All these years later, buying a blu-ray, just to see his magnificent body in action, I know would rub some the wrong way. However, I know how hard he works to maintain that beauty, from years ago, and he isn't doing it so people will look away. He's a smart guy and knows how much people appreciate the kind of genuine physical beauty that is achieved through such determined application of exercise.

Originally Posted by jayman3

Oh. So we're just gonna go ahead and ignore these much more distasteful comments made? Okay...

What you're saying is men who disrespect women and make lewd, crude, sexual comments don't bother you, but those who condone the behavior of such do bother you? And it was never meant to be a generalization.

Much in life is distasteful, to all of us, everyone here. Unfortunately, you seem to have forgotten that what we find distasteful doesn't always line up. What you find distasteful, I find funny. I'm sure you find some things entertaining or amusing that I find distasteful, disrespectful or both. But, because you are a human being, of equal value to me, I don't blame you for being different from me and, more importantly, I don't want you to change. You are you. I am me. And that's just fine with me. The bigger question is, why isn't it fine with everyone?

Originally Posted by Chedwiggen

Personally I'd be happy with Harley being covered from head to toe in her Jester outfit anything other then that she wears I don't care about. I love DC characters so hopefully this turns out good.

I loved the outfit from Batman Animated. It was her second skin.

Originally Posted by phobicsquirrel

Breasts aren't equal to a gentlemans sausage, sorry. Only Americans seem to think that showing breasts is nudity, it's not and is the same as showing male chests....

It's not quite the same as a man's member, you're correct in that, however, it is far above a man's chest, when looking at the scientific analysis of physical and neurological reactions. A hetero woman's reaction to a man's chest is nowhere near her reaction to his nude form, looking at statistical norms. A hetero man's reaction to a woman's chest, if it's one he has judged to be pleasing, is the same or very nearly the same as his reaction to that woman's nude form, again, looking at statistical norms, generally utilizing PET scan. Of greater note, in one of those tests, they found that a homosexual man still sees a huge difference, when looking at a woman. The region of his brain that is triggered in looking at her chest is the correct region, just not triggered to a high degree, as it is when shown the nude male form. In other words, even a gay man knows that breasts are a very sexual portion of the female body, to a man, because he's a man.

But, back to the point, as Robbie is in no immediate danger, up there on the screen, in scenes she filmed in the past, from those people out in the film's audience, we do have a real issue here of altering a character and risking profits in doing so. If you have a large male audience and that audience has a choice of films, will they see a film where woman are covered up to a less pleasing degree? Again, I wouldn't have spent so much on that ticket to see Aquaman, had they declared in advance of the film's release that Jason Momoa would be wearing the coat from Frontier through the whole thing.

They limited the budget on the film by $25 million, from what I was told. Cutting $25 from your initial projections isn't the end of the world, and might just be an alteration made in the normal course of events. But, given that, early in the process, it was being described as a movie "by women, for women", I believe that reduction was made because of a projected loss in profits. If the star of the film, one of the most beautiful women in the world, is covered too much, will men still pay to see this film? Again, I point out, two lesbians who have said it isn't worth the nearly $20 per person to see her covered up in such a way, as her physicality is a huge part of her appeal. If she were obese, would anyone pay $20 a person to see a star-vehicle staring her?

And, again, Harley was never known for her modesty or loose-fit clothing. Could she have lured an unwilling Joker to her bed had she dressed in this new way?

[Erzengel]

I really wonder what they are shooting for here. A lower budget Rated R comic book movie. Obviously with the success of Deadpools $700M+, but it's obviously an exception and not the rule.

[miribeau]

Originally Posted by Erzengel

I really wonder what they are shooting for here. A lower budget Rated R comic book movie. Obviously with the success of Deadpools $700M+, but it's obviously an exception and not the rule.

There's no discounting how special Deadpool is, not just for the perfect combination of actor and character, but, with the specific brand of comedy and the fast-rolling action, it is such a unique franchise. I'm not sure a film starring female super-heroes could match that, given that a film about women isn't going to be allowed, by the producers, to include some of the grungier aspects of Deadpool. He can say anything and I'll watch. I don't think I'd watch a woman say any of a good third of what I enjoy hearing him say in those movies. I'd ask for my money back if a lady talked like that. The aiming for an R may not actually result in an R, on this one. The number of obscenities that will have to be present in the film, to make up for the lack of other things, is pretty high. I'm expecting Birds to be a PG-13 in the end.

[CelluloidPal]

Originally Posted by miribeau

There's no discounting how special Deadpool is, not just for the perfect combination of actor and character, but, with the specific brand of comedy and the fast-rolling action, it is such a unique franchise. I'm not sure a film starring female super-heroes could match that, given that a film about women isn't going to be allowed, by the producers, to include some of the grungier aspects of Deadpool. He can say anything and I'll watch. I don't think I'd watch a woman say any of a good third of what I enjoy hearing him say in those movies. I'd ask for my money back if a lady talked like that. The aiming for an R may not actually result in an R, on this one. The number of obscenities that will have to be present in the film, to make up for the lack of other things, is pretty high. I'm expecting Birds to be a PG-13 in the end.

I've always found Deadpool movies to be more parodies of the genre than the superhero movies MCU is churning out as if one was done by The Zucker Brothers and that aspect is what drew me in.
In terms of the grungier aspects being allowed by the producers, if it will make them money, it's going in and it also depends on who's producing the project.
There's a chance of this going PG-13 because I'm sure that they want the young girl audience and want as many young girls to come and see this.

[miribeau]

Originally Posted by CelluloidPal

I've always found Deadpool movies to be more parodies of the genre than the superhero movies MCU is churning out as if one was done by The Zucker Brothers and that aspect is what drew me in.
In terms of the grungier aspects being allowed by the producers, if it will make them money, it's going in and it also depends on who's producing the project.
There's a chance of this going PG-13 because I'm sure that they want the young girl audience and want as many young girls to come and see this.

See, that's the thing.... Generally, if it will make them money, it goes in, and, if it won't, they take it out, before you even get to the rating. Here, they decided to take out one of the most profitable aspects of the film, the exceptional beauty of these women combined with tight fitting and mostly-absent clothing, of the type utilized in Suicide Squad, even knowing that many people saw that film for Robbie in that outfit. I had person after person telling me they wouldn't have seen it, after all the story (or lack of story) details came out, except for that HQ costume and the beauty they chose to put in it.

So, if they are taking out one of the huge profit-producers, the T&A, then they will need that PG-13 rating to get teenage girls in to see the thing. Where else will they make their profit?

[Red's got the Blu's]

If it's not going to be as male gaze-y I sure hope they made a better movie because having seen SS the male gaze-y aspect is pretty much the only explanation that makes sense for why it made as much money as it did.

[captveg]

Originally Posted by miribeau

Here, they decided to take out one of the most profitable aspects of the film, the exceptional beauty of these women combined with tight fitting and mostly-absent clothing, of the type utilized in Suicide Squad, even knowing that many people saw that film for Robbie in that outfit.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by jayman3

I mean, you can be attracted to women AND respectful to them as they’re human beings too.

It’s not hard to do that.

You’re over here talking like you thirsting for the female body and have no self control over your actions.

I’m noticing a very disturbing trend in these forums. There’s a lot of toxic masculinity on this website. Not to mention advocacy of rape culture and victim blaming...

It’s disrespectful to find a woman’s body a turn on? Can you elaborate please?

Your last paragraph is embarrassing. You really need to have a word with yourself.

I think you are confusing natural human emotions with men who want power and control over woman. This international witch-hunt needs to stop and it needs to stop now. You can’t have a go at men for finding woman with tight fitting clothing or skimpy outfits attractive. You can’t have a go at woman for finding athletic men with tight T-shirts and muscular forms attractive either. It’s actions that matter, acting on impulses is wrong if that person oversteps the line.

#gonetoofar

[Talal86]

yikes, that post is out of place and to be honest weird..

projection 101?

[Monterey Jack]

Threadlock in 3...2...1...

[InuYashaCrusade]

Will this be the new Captain Marvel thread?

[miribeau]

Originally Posted by InuYashaCrusade

Will this be the new Captain Marvel thread?

No. However, some people are forgetting that we are discussing a specific film, from multiple angles, covering topics of interest and concern, including alterations to character and wardrobe.

We are not discussing, and are not meant to be discussing, how certain women on this board or, indeed, anywhere in the world, might feel about men looking at them, specifically, because they are not actresses in this film. I think sometimes people here forget that they are not the actors in question, when evaluating things like costume choices.

I would like to remind everyone that, unless you are the actress on the screen, who has signed a contract promising to use her voice and physical body to make money for a studio, we are not discussing you nor is anyone attempting to objectify you.

PLEASE, again, let's try to keep this thread on the topic of this specific film. I remain very interested in what people think about this new version of Harley, the direction the film is taking, your desire or lack thereof to see this film, and so on. I happen to care about the DC franchise and want to see it succeed but I am concerned about what they are doing here and genuinely find your opinions on the topic of this film to be interesting. So, let's try to keep this on topic and save political discussions for political forums.

[theEXORCIST]

Im a purist I dont want Harley to dress booty shorts and tacky tattoos litterd all over her body. To me thats not how I want my Harley, Harley is cute and a little awkward and is not evil but is a total psychopath but in a cute way. I want my Black Canary to be a kickass blonde in tight leather shorts with the fishnet stockings.