Tag Archives: stupid movies

A Stupid Solution to a Stupid Problem

See the source image

*Sigh* And it’s still a boring movie…

Today for the first time I heard about the Bechdel-Wallace Test (in Martin Selbrede’s article), which rates movies and other works of fiction as “a measure of the representation of women in fiction” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test).

Invented by a cartoonist who doesn’t much like men, yet takes pains to look like one, the test “calls attention to gender inequality in fiction.” Even fiction isn’t safe from Social Justice Warriors.  To pass the test, a movie must have at least two women in it who talk about something other than a man, at least one of the female characters needs to be named… and then we can start counting minutes on the screen.

The test is now included in software that teaches you how to be a Hollywood screenwriter.

The whole discussion of the “problem” ignores the fact that a lot of movies are stupid and boring no matter how many or how few females characters are in them. And somebody seems to be forgetting that fiction is not real. Meanwhile, the Bechdel-Wallace Test is being applied to comic books and video games–reaching out to those who are intellectually challenged by movies and need something a little easier.

What do you want to bet liberals are going to try to make this mandatory? The pro-choice crowd does like to take away your choices. But remember what they did to the creator of the popular British TV crime series, Midsomer Murders. They “investigated” him, as if he had committed a crime, for not including enough minority characters in his stories; and for that thought crime, they took his show away from him and gave it to someone more obedient. Liberals just love to see people obey them.

Do I have skin in this fight? Not yet. Go ahead, read Bell Mountain and its sequels and try to find any female characters who only talk about their menfolks.

But they’re already devising similar tests to get more homosexual characters into movie scripts, as if they weren’t grossly overrepresented already, and the day will come when Hollywood adopts a “code” mandating “gender equality” in movies and other works of fiction. They used to tell you what you couldn’t write, or couldn’t film. That was censorship. Soon they’ll tell you what you must write, or must film. That, too, will be a kind of censorship.

Control over other people’s minds–libs can’t get enough of it.


A Stupid Movie for Stupid Dullards

Why do they even make these movies?

Beatrice Potter’s children’s books, including The Tale of Peter Rabbit, have been delighting children and adults for over 100 years. They are just fine the way they are, and need absolutely no improvement. They especially don’t need to be debased to the abysmal level of today’s pop culture.

But that’s just what Sony Pictures has done; and because they don’t have enough intellect to power an amoeba, they’ve made a mess of it.

In one controversial scene, Peter Rabbit takes advantage of Farmer McGregor’s dangerous food allergy by throwing some blackberries at him, forcing him to use his EpiPen to avoid going into anaphylactic shock. Sheesh. And of course there’s already a freakin’ hashtag thingy over it, #boycottpeterrabbit.

Why was this crapola added to Ms. Potter’s story? Two reasons spring to mind. (1) The film’s producers are idiots, and just plain never expected to happen what anybody could have told them would happen. (2) The film’s producers, in addition to being idiots, are ignorant idiots who actually didn’t know there were no EpiPens in Beatrice Potter’s time.

They’ll probably try to call her on her cell phone and ask about it.

That such benighted, intractable puddin’-headedness can exist in a country with more colleges and universities than ever existed anywhere before, and the biggest and costliest “education” system in all of human history, really ought to shame us into doing better, don’t you think?

And we can start by cutting the costs. Cutting ’em way, way back.


In Defense of Plain English

I am told by “Abner Doubleday” that the use of modern 21st-century slang in historical and fantasy novels is a matter of debate and he’s right for using it.

So, in novels set in the ancient world before the Flood, and involving spiritual beings as well as mortals, Abner has archangels call each other “you guys” and tease each other with nicknames, while the rebel angels, devils, run around quoting Barack Obama and Bill Clinton.

As you can probably guess, I’m warming up to write a review of these dreadful books. And the thing that makes them dreadful is the totally dumbed-down language in which they are written. Abner thinks this gives you access to a wider audience.

But surely plain English can do that just as well, without being incomprehensible to readers twenty years later. I don’t know what kind of theology he expects to teach an audience who can’t fathom anything much more intellectually challenging than a text message. This audience is addicted to movies that are pitched to the 11-year-old demographic, so it expects improbable wisecracking and forced badinage from all characters, all the time.

These movies will be unwatchable to the next generation. Meanwhile, they are extremely tiresome. It’s like they’re all part of the same interminable movie cooked up for middle school dropouts.

When you write, folks, try to remain within that really not so narrow area between “Dude, ya got a problem with that?” and “I prithee, sweet Prince, beshrew me no more.”

Your readers will thank you for it.


%d bloggers like this: