Feminism has always been monstrous. The first feminist were among othe things, murders, arsonist, misandrist and hypocrites pushing young men to go die in a war they didn't have to partake in.
The reason the "0 casualties" was emphasized was because he was following John Connor's orders to not kill people (including the police) who were not the bad guys. There was no reason for him to go on an indiscriminate murder spree to eliminate a threat -- there was only 1 threat and he shot the shit out of it every chance he got.
Sarah Connor is also shown to be kind of a man-hating lunatic (particularly in the extended cut of her assassination attempt).
Also, Aliens was just the typical horror formula: everyone but the main character dies. Except in this case, a few others were allowed to live. Bishop helps her escape, Hicks helps her escape, and Newt is saved because she's innocent. Ripley also has to repeatedly face her fears and show personal growth (aided by male characters) to get through the movie. There's no indication that Vasquez is a lesbian and she ends up dying with Gorman in his redemption. Hudson gets a redemption. Sgt. Apone is shown to be a competent, reliable, leader. It's a very masculine storyline where multiple characters experience believable growth arcs.
The reason the "0 casualties" was emphasized was because he was following John Connor's orders to not kill people (including the police) who were not the bad guys. There was no reason for him to go on an indiscriminate murder spree to eliminate a threat -- there was only 1 threat and he shot the shit out of it every chance he got.
Exactly. The OP appears to be advocating that indiscriminate use of violence just for the heck of it is somehow "masculine", and advocating that the use of controlled violence is somehow "soy" or "feminist". On the contrary, an appropriate expression of violence is controlled violence, not indiscriminate violence. In addition, the characterisation of "male violence" as being largely indiscriminate is a flawed feminist understanding of violence. In other words, advocating indiscriminate violence is probably more "soy" than castigating it.
A masculine use of violence would have a purpose, because a man knows what's at stake when violence is deployed. You'd have to be an idiot to try to take on any more than you needed to.
Because she's immediately called out for it by her son? Y'know, how protagonists that are going off the deep end are typically reprimanded in storytelling?
You mean the same trope that has been used countless times for feminist propaganda?
So? Are you saying this is some sort of a "Tropes vs. Men" situation? Or is it just a storytelling device?
"Personal growth" magically makes a woman capable, got it.
What the fuck does this even mean? She learns how to use a gun and faces her fears. Is that something that a woman would be incapable of? Is there anything in Aliens that is unrealistic because of Ripley's sex?
Also, I'll stand by Vasquez not being a lesbian. She's clearly close friends with Wierzbowski (or whatever his name was) and lesbians don't have guy friends. Show me your evidence that she is when you're done lyao like an idiot.
The reason the "0 casualties" was emphasized was because he was following John Connor's orders to not kill people (including the police) who were not the bad guys. There was no reason for him to go on an indiscriminate murder spree to eliminate a threat -- there was only 1 threat and he shot the shit out of it every chance he got.
He was following John's soy orders to not kill anyone, which of course put him and the mission at risk. Typical leftist delusion masquerading as virtue.
Ok, fine. Who would have been an appropriate "kill target" that John Connor (who is trying to save all of humanity) should have made an exception for, in this specific case?
Um, he's trying to save billions of lives. Having any rule against killing people risks that goal, so there should be no such rule. It's also totally out of character for a punk kid who robs people, but that's a whole nother topic and a typical leftist brainwashing tool ("punks who rob people are good people too!").
The scene in T2 where they're repairing the T-800 was a lot better in the director's cut.
John asks if they can reset the switch that rendered him read-only, thus restoring his ability to learn and grow. They can, but this requires physically removing his CPU for a bit.
Sarah puts it on a table--and tries to smash it with a hammer because of what the first T-800 did to her, with John just barely able to stop her.
John explains the T-800 is the best chance they have of ending the T-1000 that's come to kill them both, and pleads for his mother to calm her tits and put the neural-net processor back into his head undamaged.
After a tense several seconds, Sarah lets go of the hammer.
"...Fine...We'll play it your way."
Emotional woman is set straight by a male.
Full disclosure: The director's cut of Terminator 2 is my favorite action movie of all time.
and pleads for his mother to calm her tits and put the neural-net processor back into his head
Audiences reacted negatively to the scene where John screamed at his mother "calm your tits you stupid whore" before backhanding her across the face. Despite Cameron's intense opposition to removing this crucial bit of character development - the studio insisted it be edited out of the final cut.
Terminator 1: Arnie is the bad guy, protagonist is Sarah Connor helped along by a not overly manly Kyle Reese. I mean Kyle Reese in Terminator wasn't a soyboy or anything, but he also wouldn't be out of place in a lifetime original romance movie.
Kyle Reese is the underdog. That's not soy: the antagonist in this type of story is often going to be stronger, or smarter, or more numerous, or more heavily armed than the protagonist.
Terminator 2: Arnie's now a good guy, but pay attention to the movie. The Terminator, arnold's terminator doesn't kill a single person.
As mentioned, any casualty save the T-1000 is acceptable collateral damage at best or a critical mission failure at worst. The Resistance has already won; all they want to do is prevent any changes to the timeline that might skew things in Skynet's favour.
I would like to add to your claim with this, I have a theory that James Cameron suffers from the same problem George Lucas does in that when he's not reigned in by other people it turns what could be a fantastic work into something that's great visually but lacking in terms of story.
You can see the difference between the original trilogy to the prequels to see the difference and same when you compare Cameron's earlier work to now. They got a visual upgrade but the story is shallow. At least with Lucas, people are now signing apology letters for dissing the prequels that much ever since Disney took over, so who knows, let Disney take over Avatar and we'll probably go "they were soy but not THIS bad!"
Terminator 1 is pretty great, mostly because it's full of imagination. And I believe Cameron was saying that about testosterone because he regrets things he did in his youth. Those testosterone fueled things are what made him rise as a popular director.
Making good movies that contrast motherhood with big action setpieces isn't soy. Sarah Connor's masculinity is depicted as a necessary but twisted adaptation that drives her to insanity.
Why does motherhood need to be contrasted? How is deconstructing gender roles not soy? It's soy as fuck.
To be more specific, what I mean by "motherhood" is the prima facie aspect of caring/nurturing, which these movies contrast with the less-visible - but just as essential - motherly aspect of defense/tenacity. At some point mothers are confronted with a situation where the father isn't present and they have to don the mantle of the protector against an animal, child predator, or whatever. Because these are sci-fi action stories, the medium of expression is shotguns and flamethrowers.
Read that again. lmao
The fact that Cameron at least attempted it to make sense is the bare minimum.
He didn't "attempt it to make sense," it's an essential part of the script. The movie isn't a vehicle designed around promoting Sarah as a replacement for men, it's actually the exact opposite. She even starts thinking of the Terminator (a robot!) as a surrogate father figure because she understands John needs one.
As for why she went overboard on her masculine traits, protagonists need to make mistakes for the plot to develop correctly. There's not a single scene in T2 when she's not framed as traumatized and/or deranged.
Yes and no. The feminine and the masculine* contain slight elements of each other, like the white in the Yin/Yang contains a black dot and vice versa. Sarah teaching herself to be a commando is an overexpression of the ingredient of masculinity that makes a tomboy. Overall, she still has a feminine perspective.
Also, Sarah's speech is ironic because it's right after she was on the brink of destroying a man's life.
*edited to remove implication that femininity/masculinity are socially constructed
But the acting wasn't super manly. It wasn't effeminate either, don't get me wrong, but it's like the type of action hero a woman would write. Somewhat sensitive, masculine in a "hearthrob" way and not an intimidating way, etc.
He slams Sarah Connor back into the car and basically sits her down until she's calm enough to listen to him. Then he threatens her.
I would say to watch the movie again but I think the problem is that your idea of true masculinity is largely derived from select pop cultural touchstones so you place too much significance on certain motifs like Michael Biehn being slighter build. Kyle Reese is one of the most manly characters in cinema based on his courage, resourcefulness, integrity, and ability to succeed against all odds.
What I'm getting from this post is that Cameron makes movies for general audiences, not only for men. I don't know if that makes him soy but he definitely sells to women as much as men.
I'm just pointing out that James Cameron was never the most testosterone focused film maker contrary to what gets said.
James Cameron did feminism before feminism became the leprous monstrosity that it is now.
Feminism stage 1: Give us men's rights but not their responsibilities
Feminism stage 2: Remove our responsibilities but not our rights
Feminism stage 3: Remove men's rights but not their responsibilites < you are here
Chivalry is for saps.
Or for people who live in a legitimately noble society. But we don't anymore, so... yeah, saps.
Feminism has always been monstrous. The first feminist were among othe things, murders, arsonist, misandrist and hypocrites pushing young men to go die in a war they didn't have to partake in.
The reason the "0 casualties" was emphasized was because he was following John Connor's orders to not kill people (including the police) who were not the bad guys. There was no reason for him to go on an indiscriminate murder spree to eliminate a threat -- there was only 1 threat and he shot the shit out of it every chance he got.
Sarah Connor is also shown to be kind of a man-hating lunatic (particularly in the extended cut of her assassination attempt).
Also, Aliens was just the typical horror formula: everyone but the main character dies. Except in this case, a few others were allowed to live. Bishop helps her escape, Hicks helps her escape, and Newt is saved because she's innocent. Ripley also has to repeatedly face her fears and show personal growth (aided by male characters) to get through the movie. There's no indication that Vasquez is a lesbian and she ends up dying with Gorman in his redemption. Hudson gets a redemption. Sgt. Apone is shown to be a competent, reliable, leader. It's a very masculine storyline where multiple characters experience believable growth arcs.
I've never seen Titanic or anything after it.
Exactly. The OP appears to be advocating that indiscriminate use of violence just for the heck of it is somehow "masculine", and advocating that the use of controlled violence is somehow "soy" or "feminist". On the contrary, an appropriate expression of violence is controlled violence, not indiscriminate violence. In addition, the characterisation of "male violence" as being largely indiscriminate is a flawed feminist understanding of violence. In other words, advocating indiscriminate violence is probably more "soy" than castigating it.
Thanks -- I meant to add that point but forgot.
A masculine use of violence would have a purpose, because a man knows what's at stake when violence is deployed. You'd have to be an idiot to try to take on any more than you needed to.
Well shit. I guess Jackie Chan doesn't do 'masculine' action movies because nobody dies.
Game Over Man
Because she's immediately called out for it by her son? Y'know, how protagonists that are going off the deep end are typically reprimanded in storytelling?
So? Are you saying this is some sort of a "Tropes vs. Men" situation? Or is it just a storytelling device?
What the fuck does this even mean? She learns how to use a gun and faces her fears. Is that something that a woman would be incapable of? Is there anything in Aliens that is unrealistic because of Ripley's sex?
Also, I'll stand by Vasquez not being a lesbian. She's clearly close friends with Wierzbowski (or whatever his name was) and lesbians don't have guy friends. Show me your evidence that she is when you're done lyao like an idiot.
He was following John's soy orders to not kill anyone, which of course put him and the mission at risk. Typical leftist delusion masquerading as virtue.
Ok, fine. Who would have been an appropriate "kill target" that John Connor (who is trying to save all of humanity) should have made an exception for, in this specific case?
Um, he's trying to save billions of lives. Having any rule against killing people risks that goal, so there should be no such rule. It's also totally out of character for a punk kid who robs people, but that's a whole nother topic and a typical leftist brainwashing tool ("punks who rob people are good people too!").
The scene in T2 where they're repairing the T-800 was a lot better in the director's cut.
John asks if they can reset the switch that rendered him read-only, thus restoring his ability to learn and grow. They can, but this requires physically removing his CPU for a bit.
Sarah puts it on a table--and tries to smash it with a hammer because of what the first T-800 did to her, with John just barely able to stop her.
John explains the T-800 is the best chance they have of ending the T-1000 that's come to kill them both, and pleads for his mother to calm her tits and put the neural-net processor back into his head undamaged.
After a tense several seconds, Sarah lets go of the hammer.
"...Fine...We'll play it your way."
Emotional woman is set straight by a male.
Full disclosure: The director's cut of Terminator 2 is my favorite action movie of all time.
Audiences reacted negatively to the scene where John screamed at his mother "calm your tits you stupid whore" before backhanding her across the face. Despite Cameron's intense opposition to removing this crucial bit of character development - the studio insisted it be edited out of the final cut.
I wasn't sure if you were joking, since I didn't remember THAT line, so I watched the scene again.
Yeah, you were.
60 dollars on laserdisc
I'll gladly die on the hill of defending Terminator 2.
Kyle Reese is the underdog. That's not soy: the antagonist in this type of story is often going to be stronger, or smarter, or more numerous, or more heavily armed than the protagonist.
As mentioned, any casualty save the T-1000 is acceptable collateral damage at best or a critical mission failure at worst. The Resistance has already won; all they want to do is prevent any changes to the timeline that might skew things in Skynet's favour.
I would like to add to your claim with this, I have a theory that James Cameron suffers from the same problem George Lucas does in that when he's not reigned in by other people it turns what could be a fantastic work into something that's great visually but lacking in terms of story.
You can see the difference between the original trilogy to the prequels to see the difference and same when you compare Cameron's earlier work to now. They got a visual upgrade but the story is shallow. At least with Lucas, people are now signing apology letters for dissing the prequels that much ever since Disney took over, so who knows, let Disney take over Avatar and we'll probably go "they were soy but not THIS bad!"
That's fair and more in reference to Avatar which is essentially 'cowboys and Indians IN SPACE'
Terminator 1 is pretty great, mostly because it's full of imagination. And I believe Cameron was saying that about testosterone because he regrets things he did in his youth. Those testosterone fueled things are what made him rise as a popular director.
And he nailed them. My hypothesis is that he liked fucking young Hollywood actresses. What a feminist.
Making good movies that contrast motherhood with big action setpieces isn't soy. Sarah Connor's masculinity is depicted as a necessary but twisted adaptation that drives her to insanity.
To be more specific, what I mean by "motherhood" is the prima facie aspect of caring/nurturing, which these movies contrast with the less-visible - but just as essential - motherly aspect of defense/tenacity. At some point mothers are confronted with a situation where the father isn't present and they have to don the mantle of the protector against an animal, child predator, or whatever. Because these are sci-fi action stories, the medium of expression is shotguns and flamethrowers.
He didn't "attempt it to make sense," it's an essential part of the script. The movie isn't a vehicle designed around promoting Sarah as a replacement for men, it's actually the exact opposite. She even starts thinking of the Terminator (a robot!) as a surrogate father figure because she understands John needs one.
As for why she went overboard on her masculine traits, protagonists need to make mistakes for the plot to develop correctly. There's not a single scene in T2 when she's not framed as traumatized and/or deranged.
Yes and no. The feminine and the masculine* contain slight elements of each other, like the white in the Yin/Yang contains a black dot and vice versa. Sarah teaching herself to be a commando is an overexpression of the ingredient of masculinity that makes a tomboy. Overall, she still has a feminine perspective.
Also, Sarah's speech is ironic because it's right after she was on the brink of destroying a man's life.
*edited to remove implication that femininity/masculinity are socially constructed
Terminator is funny as kitsch. Otherwise, I have only seen some of these, and only once.
Terminator 2: the good guy is literally a boy who is soy and demands Arnie not kill anyone.
He slams Sarah Connor back into the car and basically sits her down until she's calm enough to listen to him. Then he threatens her.
I would say to watch the movie again but I think the problem is that your idea of true masculinity is largely derived from select pop cultural touchstones so you place too much significance on certain motifs like Michael Biehn being slighter build. Kyle Reese is one of the most manly characters in cinema based on his courage, resourcefulness, integrity, and ability to succeed against all odds.
What I'm getting from this post is that Cameron makes movies for general audiences, not only for men. I don't know if that makes him soy but he definitely sells to women as much as men.
I had actually never heard that one.