Should old SciFi be judged by today's standards?

[Mecha82]

Women are not cookies cut from the same mold. So they used a different mold and say all women are now this. . . So yep still judging based on likes and dislikes of today.

Indeed. Just like we men, women are individuals so even if they are expected to act certain way and have certain likes and dislikes based on some norms and gender roles that's not how it's in practice. I have seen girls and women having hobbies and interests that are mostly considered to be for boys and men like playing fighting games or playing miniature wargames or building Gundam model kits.

[Yukaphile]

There's cultural relativism, sure, but then to a degree there's also Presentism. And both have flaws. Most people I know who demonize women back then in enemy nations for being just as guilty as the men fail to understand that in the West, among those countries, the deck was stacked just as much against them as it was here. They were limited in what jobs they could take, there was pay discrimination, and so on and so forth. Plus sexual harassment in the workplace, and more. I think the "women were overall worse off back then" narrative tends to get overshadowed when it comes to the conventional wisdom we've been raised with over the past seven decades, which is that those women in those enemy nations, even if they weren't directly engaged in criminals acts, were guilty, and that "guilty" label drowns out the "victim" label. It's sad, really.

[Zargon]

I'd still point out that for ''social things" and "Special Effects".....well is Hollywood/TV really all that diffrent?

They still ONLY cast attractive people for movies and TV....even the ''ugly" people need to be like ''eights". In 2019 can we have ''average" looking people in fiction?

Male actors can keep working till like....80 years old, or more. Yet the vast majority of women just vanish from movies after they reach close to 40....you know, unless they need a ''grandma" for a sceen.

And of course everyone in Hollywood is payed the same....the Rock gets like 40 million to be in that buring tower movie...so did Emely Blunt get 40 million to be Mary Poppins?

Do we have action, adventure or super hero movies staring women? Equal to all the guys?

Who is a better hero Captain Kirk or Mikey from Discovery?

In Jrassic Park whatever...Chris Pratt is the awesome donosaury adventure guy....and the woman...is...er...there to scream and co plain and get rescued. So big change from them old Sci fi movies right?

Modern day Doctor Who women are not just pretty and young and just scream when a alien monster shows up....right?

[Yukaphile]

You know, you have a point, Zargon. Still, it's the little things. It's always the little things. Baby-step your way to progress.

[clearspira]

I'd still point out that for ''social things" and "Special Effects".....well is Hollywood/TV really all that diffrent?

They still ONLY cast attractive people for movies and TV....even the ''ugly" people need to be like ''eights". In 2019 can we have ''average" looking people in fiction?

Male actors can keep working till like....80 years old, or more. Yet the vast majority of women just vanish from movies after they reach close to 40....you know, unless they need a ''grandma" for a sceen.

And of course everyone in Hollywood is payed the same....the Rock gets like 40 million to be in that buring tower movie...so did Emely Blunt get 40 million to be Mary Poppins?

Do we have action, adventure or super hero movies staring women? Equal to all the guys?

Who is a better hero Captain Kirk or Mikey from Discovery?

In Jrassic Park whatever...Chris Pratt is the awesome donosaury adventure guy....and the woman...is...er...there to scream and co plain and get rescued. So big change from them old Sci fi movies right?

Modern day Doctor Who women are not just pretty and young and just scream when a alien monster shows up....right?

Do you know the reason why women tend to vanish when they get old in Hollywood? It isn't sexism, its because a large amount of them deliberately and knowingly got there because of their looks. Once those boobs droop and the wrinkles appear there is another woman exactly like them but twenty years younger to replace them with. But it is a lot harder for a guy to advance solely by being good looking (although yes it does play a part just not as large) and thus have more staying power.

The guys behind the MCU have said that their goal for the next generation of films is for more women so that criticism is not true. The reason why they went with mostly men first is because their most famous, most popular characters are men. Besides Captain Marvel there are no female characters that match up to Captain America, Iron Man, Hulk, Spider-Man and Thor.

And as for pay, Emily Blunt is nowhere in the same league as the Rock and Mary Poppins in nowhere in the same league as the films he stars in. But sure must be sexism, can't be star power or probability to draw an audience and thus make the money back right?

[Rocketboy1313]

Considering I am a temporal being with my own values as a reflection of my time and place and I judge things based on that I would like to know how in the hell I am supposed to judge things other than that.

The idea that you or any other audience member can somehow divorce yourself from the modern world and look at things with some sort of galaxy brained above-it-all leave-(blank)-out-of-it detached "objectivity" is just pretentious horseshit. Neither you, nor anyone else is some kind of platonic ideal of an audience member.

What is more, you SHOULD be trying to judge any media you consume with a variety of standards that exist outside your opinion, but still acknowledge that trying to do so is still a reflection of YOUR VALUES, and how YOU perceive other people's potential reflections on things. You should, of course, take your own judgement and what you think other's opinion will be and talk to other people outside of your peer group to gain another perspective.

It is about growth. And when it comes to science fiction and fantasy which envisions another time or another world, it is entirely fair to judge that other from our time and our world.

What the fuck is the point of reading anything from another time period but to contextualize it within your own experiences in order to derive novel entertainment value from it, learn from it, or to see it as the relic of a bygone era?

[Mecha82]

I'd still point out that for ''social things" and "Special Effects".....well is Hollywood/TV really all that diffrent?

They still ONLY cast attractive people for movies and TV....even the ''ugly" people need to be like ''eights". In 2019 can we have ''average" looking people in fiction?

Male actors can keep working till like....80 years old, or more. Yet the vast majority of women just vanish from movies after they reach close to 40....you know, unless they need a ''grandma" for a sceen.

And of course everyone in Hollywood is payed the same....the Rock gets like 40 million to be in that buring tower movie...so did Emely Blunt get 40 million to be Mary Poppins?

Do we have action, adventure or super hero movies staring women? Equal to all the guys?

Who is a better hero Captain Kirk or Mikey from Discovery?

In Jrassic Park whatever...Chris Pratt is the awesome donosaury adventure guy....and the woman...is...er...there to scream and co plain and get rescued. So big change from them old Sci fi movies right?

Modern day Doctor Who women are not just pretty and young and just scream when a alien monster shows up....right?

Do you know the reason why women tend to vanish when they get old in Hollywood? It isn't sexism, its because a large amount of them deliberately and knowingly got there because of their looks. Once those boobs droop and the wrinkles appear there is another woman exactly like them but twenty years younger to replace them with. But it is a lot harder for a guy to advance solely by being good looking (although yes it does play a part just not as large) and thus have more staying power.

The guys behind the MCU have said that their goal for the next generation of films is for more women so that criticism is not true. The reason why they went with mostly men first is because their most famous, most popular characters are men. Besides Captain Marvel there are no female characters that match up to Captain America, Iron Man, Hulk, Spider-Man and Thor.

And as for pay, Emily Blunt is nowhere in the same league as the Rock and Mary Poppins in nowhere in the same league as the films he stars in. But sure must be sexism, can't be star power or probability to draw an audience and thus make the money back right?

So can I assume that you think that those women can't act and with them it's all about looks because that's how what you wrote comes trough.

To be fair unlike others that you mentioned Iron Man was minor player in comic books before RDJ started to play that role in those hit movies. This is something that has been MCU's strength over what DC has been doing before DCEU. Taking minor or even unknown characters and making those characters house hold names by making high quality movies about them instead of relying on single character like DC has been doing that they have been going back to when ever they think that only that character sells when issue has been quality of movies based on most of those other DC characters.

Thing about The Rock is that his draw is that he is famous from his pro wrestling days so that's only reason why he draws even after all failures that he has had. Not because he would be good actor because he's not but because what he dd during his time in WWF/WWE. As far as I am concerned The Rock can't even touch Emily Blunt when it comes to acting ability and to me that matters more than draw power that's based on being well known before that. And if you want to talk about former WWF/WWE pro wrestlers that have become actors Dave Bautista has been better actor from very start of his Hollywood career than The Rock and he was willing to learn craft before taking his first role.

[Nealithi]

And of course everyone in Hollywood is payed the same....the Rock gets like 40 million to be in that buring tower movie...so did Emely Blunt get 40 million to be Mary Poppins?

Do we have action, adventure or super hero movies staring women? Equal to all the guys?

Who is a better hero Captain Kirk or Mikey from Discovery?

In Jurassic Park whatever...Chris Pratt is the awesome dinosaury adventure guy....and the woman...is...er...there to scream and complain and get rescued. So big change from them old Sci fi movies right?

Okay left the points I wish to address. (Not that the others are not valid but I don't have much to say there.)

Does Emily Blunt get paid based on her name attracting an audience no matter the movie? What were the movie budgets.

Yes, can name two recent ones. Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel. Do you have to have absolutely equal numbers of films made? Will that actually improve quality?

Captain Kirk.

Bad example. She demanded things like running in heels and the like that the director thought was ridiculous. Better compare Guardians of the Galaxy. Chris Pratt vs Zoe Saldana.

Just a pricing thought But Gal Gadot was paid the same for her first solo superhero movie (Wonder Woman) as Chris Evans was for his (Captain America)
http://collider.com/gal-gadot-wonder-wo ... ary/#image

That is lead position. Comparing the actor that is the lead in the last five movies compared to an extra in a crowd scene is . . disturbing. It reminds me too much of people complaining about starting salary at a factory or warehouse versus the manager who has been there fifteen years or the owner of the company and crying foul that they are not identical.
For films you also have to compare position and how long they have been using that character. Pay goes up the longer you have an actor doing the same role. And you can't compare a movie salary to a TV show salary as the budgets are just too different.

[ProfessorDetective]

Modern day Doctor Who women are not just pretty and young and just scream when a alien monster shows up....right?

Have you seen the recent season of DW? Because I can think of at least ONE woman there who doesn't scream every time the monsters show up.

[clearspira]

I'd still point out that for ''social things" and "Special Effects".....well is Hollywood/TV really all that diffrent?

They still ONLY cast attractive people for movies and TV....even the ''ugly" people need to be like ''eights". In 2019 can we have ''average" looking people in fiction?

Male actors can keep working till like....80 years old, or more. Yet the vast majority of women just vanish from movies after they reach close to 40....you know, unless they need a ''grandma" for a sceen.

And of course everyone in Hollywood is payed the same....the Rock gets like 40 million to be in that buring tower movie...so did Emely Blunt get 40 million to be Mary Poppins?

Do we have action, adventure or super hero movies staring women? Equal to all the guys?

Who is a better hero Captain Kirk or Mikey from Discovery?

In Jrassic Park whatever...Chris Pratt is the awesome donosaury adventure guy....and the woman...is...er...there to scream and co plain and get rescued. So big change from them old Sci fi movies right?

Modern day Doctor Who women are not just pretty and young and just scream when a alien monster shows up....right?

Do you know the reason why women tend to vanish when they get old in Hollywood? It isn't sexism, its because a large amount of them deliberately and knowingly got there because of their looks. Once those boobs droop and the wrinkles appear there is another woman exactly like them but twenty years younger to replace them with. But it is a lot harder for a guy to advance solely by being good looking (although yes it does play a part just not as large) and thus have more staying power.

The guys behind the MCU have said that their goal for the next generation of films is for more women so that criticism is not true. The reason why they went with mostly men first is because their most famous, most popular characters are men. Besides Captain Marvel there are no female characters that match up to Captain America, Iron Man, Hulk, Spider-Man and Thor.

And as for pay, Emily Blunt is nowhere in the same league as the Rock and Mary Poppins in nowhere in the same league as the films he stars in. But sure must be sexism, can't be star power or probability to draw an audience and thus make the money back right?

So can I assume that you think that those women can't act and with them it's all about looks because that's how what you wrote comes trough.

I think that its certainly true that a good rack easily compensates for skill if you're a woman and many women exploit that to its fullest even though in the long term its detrimental to them. Whilst good looks are a serious advantage for a man I do not dispute this, I will also argue that it is immeasurably harder for him to ride that train than it is for her as thus he needs to put in a lot more work on his craft to remain relevant.

So to answer your question: no, it does not mean they cannot automatically act, but equally, if your boobs or ass are the only things that you were mostly hired for, and suddenly you vanish without a trace when those boobs or ass are a bit past it; we're into a one plus one equals two situation here lets be honest. And like it or not, there are hundreds of thousands of women like this.

You also see this replicated in child actors and actresses who were hired to be cute and then suddenly vanishing or going severely off the rails when they are no longer cute. Suddenly the thing that got them work is gone. Mara Wilson (who among other things played Matilda and Miracle on 34th Street) has had a lot of negative things to say about the meat grinder that is Hollywood when she realised that exact thing was happening to her. Luckily she gave up acting before anything bad happened AKA your Lohan's and Culkin's of this world.