I think the problem was not that women get punched in the face, but that pretty much exclusively women get punched in the face.mrblakemiller said:1. Abrams used too much lens flare ONE TIME and got hammered for it right when the film came out. Remember all the other stuff he's done that didn't have too much lens flare? Cloverfield was great. It's like cutting Al Pacino's nuts off for starring in Cruising.
2. Which came first, actual witch hunts or stories about evil witches? Mhm. And no, I don't care that some people some time used this phrase to kill people who were innocent. If I had that as a qualifier, I wouldn't be able to play the same video games all the school shooters have, would I?
3. Why is it still offensive for a man to punch a villian in the face if she's a woman? If you ask me, it's sexist in its exceptionalism. A man or woman punching a male villian in the face is just a hero punching a villian in the face, but women don't get to be "villians," they have to be "female villains." They're still an exception to the rule, still illegitimate in that role. I say thee nay. Kinda funny that this criticism happens one or two days after the Army starts talking about lifting the ban on women in forward combat positions.
But yeah, any main character getting hurt and nursed back to health twice by two different characters sounds like too much for a 90-minute film.
Haven't seen it yet though, was thinking to maybe give it a rent whenever I feel like watching a shitty action movie.
Not sure about Bob's opinion, as I'm not him, but Sucker Punch did so many things wrong that appearing sexist didn't even make the front page of offenses.xPixelatedx said:Really Bob? You think this movie is sexist but Suckerpunch isn't?