X-MEN 3 and mediocritocracy (Extremely Spoilerific) by HKCavalier

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
The film has an ugly anti-feminine subtext.

I've seen other people post this, and I don't really agree. Pretty much everyone in this movie is making bad choices/having their characters undermined, not just the women. I mean Beast of all people stabs Magneto with the cure for crying out loud! Plus, you know, if Jean and Rogue were male characters, no one would be complaining that the film had an ugly anti-masculine subtext... ;)

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Jean, the Goddess incarnate must be destroyed, period.

I don't think this has anything to do with her gender. I mean Jean herself begs Logan to kill her - it's not as though the decision is being forced on her.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Rogue, fearful of her own potential, like a modern Guinevere, chooses subserviance and powerlessness to achieve sexual fulfillment.

I'm not quite sure how hurting someone by touching them can be considered 'potential'. Furthermore, I think you could make a good case for Rogue's decision to take the cure as being a strong one. She obviously understands that doing so will make her unpopular with other mutants, but she does so anyway because it's what she wants. Having said that, I do think the 'love triangle' thing was a little heavy-handed - they should have focused more on Rogue making the decision herself as opposed to putting a rush on it to prevent someone stealsing Bobby away from her.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
And Storm, another veritable Goddess in our midst, must wash her own brain until she spouts platitudes like a mutant Hilary Clinton.

Let's face it - they've never had a clue how to write Storm.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 6, 2006 8:37 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Grounded:
...if Jean and Rogue were male characters, no one would be complaining that the film had an ugly anti-masculine subtext... ;)

Grounded, please, this isn't logic you're using. You imply a symetrical relationship between the sexes when there isn't one in this context. The people in charge of this movie, the writers, producers, director of this film are predominantly men. That the choice was made to disempower these three key female characters in the way they were disempowered is consistent with a centuries old anti-feminine tendency. Simply changing the gender of these three characters would not invert the situation unless you also changed Stan Lee's sex, the sex of the director, writers, producers--and for that matter, the President of the United States, Jesus, God, etc. Any discussion of discrimination must take context into account.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Jean, the Goddess incarnate must be destroyed, period.

I don't think this has anything to do with her gender. I mean Jean herself begs Logan to kill her - it's not as though the decision is being forced on her.

Grounded, again you're dropping crucial cultural context. Of course it has everything to do with her gender. Her first act in the film is to consume Cyclops, her ostensible beloved, alive. He believes he is on the verge of sexual gratification and instead the woman devours him. The fear of castration that this reflects does not have an opposite number in the female psyche. Certainly women fear violence from men, but they don't have to dream up vaginas dentatae to do it.

And please, I'm making a point about the male creators of this fantasy. That they construct a female character that begs for her own anihilation is entirely my point. So really it is exactly "as though" the decision were forced on her. And why does she beg for this anihilation? Her only unique crime is that she is too powerful. Hmmmmm.

And who's to say how her Pheonix power would have developed if Prof. X. hadn't violated her as a child? Violated her as a child, Grounded. He feared her power, and that fear lead him to commit a great evil against her.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Rogue, fearful of her own potential, like a modern Guinevere, chooses subserviance and powerlessness to achieve sexual fulfillment.

I'm not quite sure how hurting someone by touching them can be considered 'potential'.

If "hurting someone by touching them" where Rogue's only power, you would be correct. But it ain't. For instance, you know, she can touch Wolverine. I'm sure she would be able to touch Jean Grey without troubling Jean too much.

Beyond all that though, I don't know how much of a victim of her mutation Rogue necessarily is. These people all live in a world full of mysterious inexplicable powers that never change. That's not a real world. The writers of these worlds immagine all sorts of physical mutations, but they don't/can't immagine spiritual mutation. As long as Rogue believes herself helpless in the face of her mutation, as long as she only makes decisions out of fear, she is lost. As long as she has to destroy a part of herself in order to be happy, she is living a lie.

Rogue's powers, after all, are a metaphor for real powers that create real fears within ourselves. We all have the potential to hurt the ones we love; according to our natures, it is practically innevitable. So is it right then to take a drug that will suppress our potentiality to harm others? Should we all be taking SOMA like the folks in Brave New World?

Extremely brilliant or gifted people have a real potential for hurting less brilliant and gifted people in intimate relationships. To be close to a really amazing person, you have to have a pretty powerful self-esteme yourself.

Quote:
Furthermore, I think you could make a good case for Rogue's decision to take the cure as being a strong one. She obviously understands that doing so will make her unpopular with other mutants, but she does so anyway because it's what she wants.

You have a different idea of strength than I do. What you're describing is a strong will. Most people don't want a friend to commit suicide either, so are you saying that the person who kills herself anyway is showing strength of character? Taking the cure, violates Rogue's nature. She's got a tough row to hoe, no argument there, but perminently crippling her power is not a solution unless she has no love or regard for her self.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 6, 2006 10:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Grounded, please, this isn't logic you're using.

If we're going to have this discussion, I'd appreciate a little less cuteness.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
You imply a symetrical relationship between the sexes when there isn't one in this context. The people in charge of this movie, the writers, producers, director of this film are predominantly men. That the choice was made to disempower these three key female characters in the way they were disempowered is consistent with a centuries old anti-feminine tendency.

Yes, and I'm saying that the relationship is only asymmetrical if you choose to see a difference between the genders. I don't think either of us can claim to honestly know how the writers/directors/producers approached this film in terms of gender roles. I sincerely doubt any of them had female disempowerment in mind during production.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Grounded, again you're dropping crucial cultural context. Of course it has everything to do with her gender. Her first act in the film is to consume Cyclops, her ostensible beloved, alive. He believes he is on the verge of sexual gratification and instead the woman devours him. The fear of castration that this reflects does not have an opposite number in the female psyche. Certainly women fear violence from men, but they don't have to dream up vaginas dentatae to do it.

'He believes he's on the verge of sexual gratification'? If you assume a man can't have any feelings for a woman besides sexual ones then I guess you have a point, but I don't think they play it that way in the film at all. In fact, as movie relationships go, Cyclops/Jean has always been a fairly conservative one.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
And please, I'm making a point about the male creators of this fantasy. That they construct a female character that begs for her own anihilation is entirely my point. So really it is exactly "as though" the decision were forced on her. And why does she beg for this anihilation? Her only unique crime is that she is too powerful. Hmmmmm.

Her crime is not that she's too powerful, it's that she cannot, and later will not, control her power. As I understand it, in the comics there is actually an analogous story with a male character, Proteus I believe, who goes through the same thing.

My point boils down to this:

If you're writing a story in which a character becomes all-powerful, begs for death, and is ultimately killed, are you necessarily being anti-feminine by making that character female? I don't believe that you are. Joss gave us a story in which a woman abused her own power to the point of near annihilation, but was talked down by a man. Is that anti-feminine?...

Amidst all this heavier stuff, I do agree with you that in this particular film the female characters, besides Kitty, do kind of get the short end of the stick. I don't agree, however, that this was done deliberately. I think it was just a consequence of the generally shoddy writing/directing/etc. that massacred virtually ever character in sight.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 6, 2006 10:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Most people don't want a friend to commit suicide either, so are you saying that the person who kills herself anyway is showing strength of character?

That isn't even close to analogous. If it were, taking the cure would be equivalent to death, and we both know that's not true.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Taking the cure, violates Rogue's nature. She's got a tough row to hoe, no argument there, but perminently crippling her power is not a solution unless she has no love or regard for her self.

Plenty of people are born with (or end up with) a 'tough row to hoe'. Are they not entitled to take measures to improve their situation? Rogue's 'power' is practically a disability. It serves her no discernible purpose; it's not benign or controllable or advantageous like the powers of some of the other mutants. And since I don't believe they ever mention the concept of 'secondary mutation', a staple of the comics, in the movies, she also has no cause to believe her situation might change for the better naturally. It's not about having no love or respect for herself - it's about seeing an opportunity which she believes will better her situation, and taking it. Whether she ultimately regrets doing so, we have yet to see.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 6, 2006 10:52 AM

DESKTOPHIPPIE

Quote:

If "hurting someone by touching them" where Rogue's only power, you would be correct. But it ain't. For instance, you know, she can touch Wolverine. I'm sure she would be able to touch Jean Grey without troubling Jean too much.

Beyond all that though, I don't know how much of a victim of her mutation Rogue necessarily is. These people all live in a world full of mysterious inexplicable powers that never change. That's not a real world. The writers of these worlds immagine all sorts of physical mutations, but they don't/can't immagine spiritual mutation. As long as Rogue believes herself helpless in the face of her mutation, as long as she only makes decisions out of fear, she is lost. As long as she has to destroy a part of herself in order to be happy, she is living a lie.

I agree with most of what you said, but this bit I have to disagree with.

Rogue is helpless in the face of her mutation. It can't be controlled. It can't be stopped. It can't be limited. The kiss she manages in X-men II (the one where she blows out cold air afterwards) is about as much as she can manage, and even then she is barely able to control herself. It's also a heck of a lot more than she managed in the comics. My geeky side remembers one incident where she gave someone mouth to mouth, but still couldn't stop a flood of memories coming through.

It came through a lot clearer in the comics, but Rogue's mutation sentenced her to a life of isolation. Her first kiss put her boyfriend in a coma. In the movie version this only lasted a week, but in the comics Cody never regained consciousness. She got her comic book powers of flight and invulnerability by absorbing the life force of Miss Marvel, which also put that hero in a coma. She was never able to touch people without causing hurt. She wasn't even able to consumate her relationship with Gambit, something that he handled quite well but which hurt her deeply.

Yes, Rogue was held back by fear of her mutation. But she had every reason in the world to fear it, and to hate it. Not every fear is unreasonable. If I were her, I probably would have taken the cure too.

That being said, the Jean storyline in the movie was an awful mishmash cobbled together to avoid the whole Shi'ar, alien Phoenix force stuff, which granted would have swamped the movie completely. Unless they got Joss to write it. The movie didn't do the character Jean justice.

Desktop Hippie: at one with the 'verse

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 6, 2006 12:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DesktopHippie:
That being said, the Jean storyline in the movie was an awful mishmash cobbled together to avoid the whole Shi'ar, alien Phoenix force stuff, which granted would have swamped the movie completely. Unless they got Joss to write it. The movie didn't do the character Jean justice.

I'm glad they didn't go the alien route...but yeah Joss would have sold it a whole lot better ;)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 6, 2006 7:35 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Go read the novel they lifted most of this plot line from - which handles the whole concept in a far more rational, reasonable, adult manner instead of the juvenille action-movie drivel that hollywood reduced it to via film.

The novel is called smoke and mirrors.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1572972912/qid=1149657975/sr=1-6/ref=
sr_1_6/102-7323786-3402520?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

At the end of the book, you kinda still hold out hope for mutant and humankind, but at the end of hollywoods bizarre mutilation, you just kinda feel.. disgusted.

I really, really didn't like that flick, it wasn't entertaining, sent mixed and disturbing messages it didn't even hide very well, and took certain liberties that make the story just plain not work - at all.

Even if I had zero foreknowledge of any of the story, I still would have hated it, there's no significant plot, no real resolution, no character development... hell, if you want a semi-mindless action flick, Golan-Globus could have done it ten times better on half the budget.

Me->

<-Hollywood

That about says it all, yes ?

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 8:05 AM

CHRISMOORHEAD

Quote:
Grounded, please, this isn't logic you're using. You imply a symetrical relationship between the sexes when there isn't one in this context. The people in charge of this movie, the writers, producers, director of this film are predominantly men. That the choice was made to disempower these three key female characters in the way they were disempowered is consistent with a centuries old anti-feminine tendency. Simply changing the gender of these three characters would not invert the situation unless you also changed Stan Lee's sex, the sex of the director, writers, producers--and for that matter, the President of the United States, Jesus, God, etc. Any discussion of discrimination must take context into account.

Well, what about the first two movies which had predominently male crew members? Why didn't those movies "disempower" females?

As much as this subject irks me, I'm going to try and remain open minded about this. But for the record, this just seems like extreme liberal garbage to me. If you're constantly looking for a specific thing to be wrong, then eventually you're going to find it, even if it's not there.

This movie was poorly made, and that's about it. The "disempowered" female Jean Grey destroyed not only her lover, but also the mutant who was made out to be the MOST powerful in the previous movie: Professor X. Beyond that, she made Magneto, another of the most powerful mutants, cower away from her several times.

Aside from that, they had what looked to be a 15 year old girl, Kitty Pride, hold her own during a giant mutant gang war, then beat the Juggernaut. Sure, she didn't do it physically, but he punked Wolverine earlier in the movie, and now he's getting bested by a teenager.

I'm not taking the exact opposit position and saying that I think the makers of the film were in fact trying to empower females, but rather I think it's a complete and total non-issue. If you want true equality, then you have to stop beleiving that it absolutley exists in every dark corner that you can find. Be objective about it.

There's this book I heard of called "White Guilt", which has the underlying theme that if black people (or, in my opinion, any minority) keep trying to earn things by playing off of the guilt and accused discrimination of white people (and in this case, males), they are in fact disempowering themselves.

-----------------------------------------------
They say I am a sinner and seducer, they try to put the blame on me, but I don't give a fuck for the way they see

Stand up and you'll win, surrender and you'll lose, it's heads or tails, you have to choose.

Heads or tails, which way will you choose? Die or live, surrender or fight? Wild and free, together we'll stand, strong and proud, we will claim our right.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 8:35 AM

STORYMARK

Actually, the head producer on all three X films has been a woman: Lauren-Schuler Donner.

Not trying to take sides here, just pointing out a fact that was overlooked above - though I agree that 3 had an obviouse subtext about the a woman with power being dangerous. Then again, that was part of the subtext in the original story, so damned if you do...damned if you don't...

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 8:48 AM

CHRISMOORHEAD

Don't producers just give money to the project? I'm seriously not well versed in their roles, but I thought that they had little to nothing to do with the creative department.

Even if they do, though, I don't see how that conflicts with my point. It was HKCavalier that brought that issue up, and if indeed producers have say in the creative process, and with the head producer being female, that's more of an argument against Cavalier's accusation that the movie's biased against women.

Conversly, if producers don't have say in the creative process, it's pretty much a non-issue.

-----------------------------------------------
They say I am a sinner and seducer, they try to put the blame on me, but I don't give a fuck for the way they see

Stand up and you'll win, surrender and you'll lose, it's heads or tails, you have to choose.

Heads or tails, which way will you choose? Die or live, surrender or fight? Wild and free, together we'll stand, strong and proud, we will claim our right.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 9:55 AM

HKCAVALIER

If you folks don't see that we live in a sexist culture, I can't help you. If you can't see that art, particularly deeply symbolic fantasies like the X-men saga, have an opportunity and therefore a moral responsibility to explore alternatives to the same old "if you can't control it, it must be destroyed" mentality, we have nothing here to discuss.

This world is in deep shit folks, pardon my french. In my oppinion, the systematic disregard and devaluing of what are understood, psychologically, to be feminine values and traits--expressive emotionalism; consern for the feelings of others; introspection and talking through conflict rather than always choosing violence; genuine valuing of human lives, even when those lives belong to people who are our ideological enemies--has a lot to do with why things are as effed up as they are right now. All of us humans, male and female alike, suffer by it.

You know, there aren't a lot of stories about transendently powerful females in our culture. Whereas our major religions all present ultimate power as a masculine monopoly. When a woman's power is so thoroughly and completely demonized as Jean Grey's is in X-MEN 3, it makes me sad. It's discouraging to see our culture's will to discredit and destroy feminine power so very alive and well in the 21st century.

God damn, it's not about us and them, my fellow men. I'm not extolling the supposed "benefits" of guilt and shame that this discussion evokes in so many of you. Harming and disempowering women--and anything and everything resembling a woman--harms the human species, harms our children. Remember, all us boys are a good 49% female, genetically speaking.

Why does simply mentioning this topic, the disempowerment and debasement of the feminine, make you so mad? I know why I'm angry, do you know why you are?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 4:19 PM

HKCavalier wrote a very interesting analysis and I'm sorry that I have to disagree with a couple of things in it (generally I agree with HKCavalier much more often than I disagree with him - this is one of the things where I guess I disagree with him). By the way, I'm definitely not a fan of the movie, so don't think I'm trying to defend it.

First off, I think the anti-feminism thing is reading too much into it. I can see why one could think that, but still... naaah. Storm was written pathetically, but as somebody else said, they never knew how to write her. Rogue made her own choice. Pretty much everybody would have told her not to get the cure and she did anyway because it was the right choice for her as an individual. It's not about a woman surrendering her power, it's about making an individual decision that gave her what she wanted most, to be able to have physical contact with somebody (she already had these desires before Bobby came along, so it wasn't just to be able to shag him and get him back). Is making individual choices and having physical urges really anti-feminist?

I liked this explanation of Phoenix much more, I think it's a far more "plausible" explanation for her than an alien entity being bored. Anyway, her being so powerful and then being killed hardly seems anti-feminist to me, which brings me to my second point, where I agree with HKCavalier's argument that killing her wasn't necessary.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
There's a chance for healing here, but neither of them see it. She merely succeeds in suppressing her darkness long enough so he can murder her. /golfclap

Don't know about a chance for healing and the use of the word "murder", but definitely another solution could have been found. For example, there were still plenty of broken dart guns with the cure in them and this idea worked fine with Magneto, so why didn't Logan just grab some when he was walking towards her (or before, so that she wouldn't know he had them)? No need for killing if you can just take away her powers.

Third point. Regarding the question of whether the cure is permanent, I think it's safe to just assume it's a permanent "solution", not that a single injection will last permanently. Leech's DNA in the injections seem to be what causes the mutants to lose their powers, so once this has been expelled from the bloodstream the mutant will have to get a new injection. The time it takes to be expelled may vary depending on what else they put int he injection to make organs pick up the DNA so that it stays in the body for longer... or something along those lines. The point is that the cure can effectively be considered permanent for those who really want it.

Finally, Prof X blocking Jean's subconscious. I only saw the movie once so maybe I remember it incorrectly, but I'm pretty sure he said that she set up mental blocks to keep her dark side locked away, not he. I'm sure his plan would have been to try to work with her dark side while she was younger, but the mental blocks she installed were too powerful. He kept her sedated after they found her again because he knew how destructive her dark side could be and that he couldn't fight that side of her and win. The disappearance of Scott probably suggested to him that something bad happened and that Phoenix possibly was that bad thing. I don't think Wolverine was being visionary at all, and by keeping her sedated Prof X did exactly the right thing, namely try to suppress an evil he knew shouldn't be unleashed and possibly couldn't be beaten.

By the way, what was the point of having Moira McTaggert there? If one wants to introduce an important character, make them actually do something important. Or anything at all. And I still don't see why they couldn't find a spot for Nightcrawler in this movie, it was six X-Men against an army, I'm sure he could've been useful. But I have many issues with the movie and I'll rant some other time.

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 8, 2006 3:34 AM

DEEPGIRL187

Just a quick note Khyron, Professor X was actually the one that set up the blocks. This provoked the argument between him and Wolverine about him having no right to control her in that manner. It was also one the reasons that she killed him.

HKCavalier had some good points, but speaking as a woman, I don't find X3 to be really anti-feminist. When I was a child, one of the reasons I enjoyed X-Men was the fact that it had strong female characters. Any faults with the movies I think are due to either bad writing, bad directing, or (in one very Halle Berry-specific case) bad acting. And truth be told, if you want to find anti-feminism in the comics, there are a lot better examples than X-Men. Early DC comics, hell, even some Marvel comics are more anti-feminist than X-Men could ever hope to be. I'm not saying things shouldn't have been handled differently in the film, but I don't agree that it's as bad as you make it out to be.

**************************************************

"I'm going to sing the doom song! Doom, doom, doom, doom, doom, doom, doom, doom, dooooooom...."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 8, 2006 5:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by deepgirl187:
Just a quick note Khyron, Professor X was actually the one that set up the blocks. This provoked the argument between him and Wolverine about him having no right to control her in that manner. It was also one the reasons that she killed him.

Thanks. As I said, I may have remembered it wrong and it seems that was the case. I stand corrected, but I still think Prof X handled the situation as best as he could. If one can't defeat an evil, one should try to at least incapacitate it.

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 8, 2006 6:22 AM

DEEPGIRL187

Agreed. Though if Jean could have eventually been able to control her powers, you have to admit it would be pretty amazing to see.

**************************************************

"I'm going to sing the doom song! Doom, doom, doom, doom, doom, doom, doom, doom, dooooooom...."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 8, 2006 6:34 AM

FREMDFIRMA

In retrospect, something to consider - and this struck me deeply because in the right context, everyone here could be considered 'dangerous' and thus should be contained/confined 'for their own good'... that's a very, VERY slippery slope.

Ok, Phoenix - as portrayed in the movie, only.

Name a single violent or harmful act she committed that was not in direct response to a real or percieved threat to her person, or personhood ?

Name ONE.

Scott wanted Jean, in effect to shove her back in her box or even outright destroy her.

Same with Professor X.

Magneto didn't care who or what she was, other than she was a mutant, and if she wanted to help his cause along, fine by him... you'll note that she just stood by peaceably, and didn't just go on a mindless rampage on everyone in sight, yes?

Magneto was also smart enough to NOT threaten her in any way.

This so-called cure, by many mutants including Phoenix, was seen as a threat to their personhood, thus she was of course going to assist in efforts to destroy it.

Phoenix never even got a CHANCE to prove that she could get along with the rest of humanity, it was denied her, and in the doing of this, an evil act was committed... and continued to be denied and suppressed, when theraputic fusion would have been a far better resource for both personalities.

Think about it, to be confined and destroyed not because you DID do a thing, but because you CAN do a thing ? - is this not prejudgement ?

Arrogant presumption of the worst order ?

Are there really, NO circumstances at all, where you or I, would not be "dangerous" to someone or something else ?

And would it be a morally right or wrong response to just let us be ?

Hard questions folks, easy answers.

What really is the difference between the PAX, and prozac/zoloft/thorazine/etc ?

Being human is more than just DNA.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 11, 2006 3:16 PM

STORYMARK

That's taking a Big leap to justify Scott's death as self-defense.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 11, 2006 3:59 PM

HKCavalier, that was very insightful , I didn't care that much for the movie either.

in some ways your right it is a reflection of our world, what we need and have always needed was more feminine energy and power and it's something that the world lacks which in some ways is why we are in the circumstances and shape that we are in.

Our world is in serious trouble Female power and energy is and has been surpressed,not only by male forces and energy, that fear our awesome power ,but also by us..ourselves, if we women would truly embrace our power this world would be a much better and saner place.!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 11, 2006 4:13 PM

Finally, Prof X blocking Jean's subconscious. I only saw the movie once so maybe I remember it incorrectly, but I'm pretty sure he said that she set up mental blocks to keep her dark side

Quote:
locked away, not he. I'm sure his plan would have been to try to work with her dark side while she was younger, but the mental blocks she installed were too powerful. He kept her sedated after they found her again because he knew how destructive her dark side could be and that he couldn't fight that side of her and win. The disappearance of Scott probably suggested to him that something bad happened and that Phoenix possibly was that bad thing. I don't think Wolverine was being visionary at all, and by keeping her sedated Prof X did exactly the right thing, namely try to suppress an evil he knew shouldn't be unleashed and possibly couldn't be beaten.

but isn't this how women in general are thought of espeically powerful women, that they must be controlled, that the power of women is something to be feared and , that we are out of control.

Jean Phoenix was to powerful , so she needed to be controlled, I thought it was anti feminine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 11, 2006 4:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
that the power of women is something to be feared and ,

It is if women can't control that power and it presents a mortal danger to others. Same goes for men.

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 11, 2006 10:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
that the power of women is something to be feared and ,

It is if women can't control that power and it presents a mortal danger to others. Same goes for men.

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

But that is not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the historical suppression of women, and female energy.

The professors's controls/ blocks he put up to repress Jean's power can be compared to the control and blocks that men have put on females throughout history.

Even if Jean was a party to her own supression, this can be compared to the roles placed on females in society, in some cultures going against those set roles can lead to a very cruel and harsh death.

The Power of women have been feared for so long, men and the male energy force fear it.

Fear is the orginal sin, and its degrading, anything bred or born out of fear, isn't geniune

men I think subconsiously do feel that they will be consumed by female energy.? Jean consuming cyclops was a perfect metaphor for that particular fear, Hacaliver was right in his assesment I think !!There is a great imbalance in the world to much male energy and not enough female engery in power to conteract it.

its the yin and the yang..female engergy is the life force its the earth, the water, emotions, its the yin , the yang is the agressive male force the destructive powers in nature, both are needed for balance but ours has been surppressed.

if there has to be an imbalance , it would be better if it was on our side

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 12, 2006 11:50 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
That's taking a Big leap to justify Scott's death as self-defense.

For you, sure.
For me, maybe.

Phoenix on the other hand ?

Saw him as a threat to her personhood and acted accordingly - I mean, what do you THINK his reaction would be to the situation ?

I know if someone meant to do me in, well, imma big fan of pre-emption in that case too.

You really think Scott would have meekly accepted that she wasn't Jean anymore ?

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 12, 2006 12:15 PM

SOUPCATCHER

I had a question that I was hoping someone with more X-knowledge could answer. The X-profiler on Magneto's team said that Phoenix was a class 5. What are Magneto and Professor X? (Maybe I'd know this if I had Made Mine Marvel

). I got the impression that they were nowhere near her power, so I assumed class 4.

If that's correct, than I have a big problem with a class 4 trying to dictate to a class 5 how they should use their powers. How would they know?

Personally, I think Professor X earned everything he got.

And put me down in the, "tired stereotypical portrayal of women characters" camp. Just because that's the way women are always portrayed doesn't make it right.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 12, 2006 4:01 PM

STILLFLYIN

One thing that I think that merits discussion about this movie is the role that the humans had in the conflict. The conflict between mutant and human goes beyond the matters of power, the conflict between those who have it and those who do not, that many people discuss.
The two sides represent the fundamental division within humanity. The mutants represent those who relied on personal abilities to control their environment. The humans represent those who rely on intelligence to accomplish their aims. The mutants have great power that they use to further their cause, while the humans, lacking these advanced abilities must rely on ingenuity to defeat the mutants' powers, reference the prisons the government used to contain magneto and mystique, in both cases the imprisoned mutant was only able to escape with due to outside intervention.
An example of this relationship is the peasant with an old matchlock musket shooting down the armored knight who had dominated warfare for almost a thousand years.
The movie also looks at the willingness of a person to make sacrifices and hard choices. Human forces could have defeated Jean had they been willing to make the call. An air-burst Low-yield nuclear weapon, delivered by a balistic missile, would have been able to defeat rebel mutant forces. While Magneto had power over metallic objects and Jean over all matter, I do not think that either would have been able to stop a ballistic missile travelling at least 10 times the speed of a rifle bullet and even if they could, they would not have been able to react in time to do so. And once the weapon detonated, neither would be able to stop either the concussive blast or the searing heat produced. Any collateral damage would have been limited to areas immedately surrounding the water. Leech would have been lost, but based on the statements made by the scientists, a way probably could have been found to replicate the cure from existing stockpiles. And the mutant rebellion would have been over

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 12, 2006 4:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
If that's correct, than I have a big problem with a class 4 trying to dictate to a class 5 how they should use their powers. How would they know?

Well, in response to the underlined part, one doesn't need to be a class 5 mutant to know when a class 5 mutant is in danger of abusing his/her powers and present a mortal threat to many others, just like one doesn't need to be the president to know when he's abusing his powers.

Your argument is basically saying that the less powerful should succumb to the more powerful because what right do they have to stand up to the more powerful. So, let's see how we can apply that argument to real life:
i) the US is more powerful than other nations, so bugger other nations, the US can use and abuse them as it wants and how dare they try to stop it, they're less powerful.
ii) George Bush is the president of the US, therefore more powerful than pretty much any living thing on this planet. So who are these insects in the UN, in foreign governments, in federal government, on message boards, etc, who try to dictate how he should do his job? They're less powerful than he is so they should know their role and shut the hell up.
iii) some drunk guy who just came from a pub is trying to rape a girl. He's more powerful than I am in the sense that he's stronger and maybe even armed, so who am I to try to stop him? I shouldn't try to stop him because I have no right to, being a lesser being.
iv) etc, etc.

See where I'm going with this?

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 12, 2006 5:57 PM

SOUPCATCHER

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
See where I'm going with this?

Absolutely. And I completely agree with you in regards to your examples. And I think there's a difference. And I'm not sure how to articulate that difference. And I'm going to have to think some more about it.

* edited to remove what I wrote since I'm not sure it makes sense

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 12, 2006 6:55 PM

REAVERMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
I'm talking about the historical suppression of women, and female energy.

Female energy? WTH is that?

Quote:
The Power of women have been feared for so long, men and the male energy force fear it.

No, what men, like women, fear is change. Not some mystical gender based energy. Its as simple as this:
In nature, Men ruled the tribes because men were stronger, and in nature, might makes right , so the strong led, protected, fought, etc. Over time, civilizations developed and cultures evolved around the prehistoric idea that Men should do the ruling and women should do the housework and such. These ideas became so ingrained in all cultures, that we cling to them, even when they are obsolete, because we dont want to change.

Quote:
men I think subconsiously do feel that they will be consumed by female energy.? Jean consuming cyclops was a perfect metaphor for that particular fear, Hacaliver was right in his assesment I think !!There is a great imbalance in the world to much male energy and not enough female engery in power to conteract it.

Again with the male/female energy. Isn't it more than a tad sexist of you to say that there are energies that define every man or every woman? As for female energy being all peaceful, loving, and nurturing and the like, you have obviously never met anyone like my Mother. Claiming that male energy is destructive and agressive is a foolish generalization as well. I know plenty of men that work hard for peace and sanity.

Quote:
if there has to be an imbalance , it would be better if it was on our side

Yet again, another foolish statement. ANY inequality is bad and WILL lead to supression. If women take over as completely as men have, the first thought would be that women are better and should have special priveledges. The simple fact is that women are human too, and have the same vulerability to greed and powerlust. What needs to happen is complete gender equality. Both sides having equal voice to force people to compromise.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 12, 2006 8:55 PM

Quote:
Female energy? WTH is that?

surely you know what female energy is, most women are inherantly nurturing..I didn't say all..I said most, because your a man its hard to explain , but I think it has alot to do with the fact that we can create life, and even when we aren't in the process of creating life, we are aware of it every month, women are more in tune with life, and the life force engergies and the respossiblities that goes along with that , and all that, that entells,

Quote:
No, what men, like women, fear is change. Not some mystical gender based energy. Its as simple as this:
In nature, Men ruled the tribes because men were stronger, and in nature, might makes right , so the strong led, protected, fought, etc. Over time, civilizations developed and cultures evolved around the prehistoric idea that Men should do the ruling and women should do the housework and such. These ideas became so ingrained in all cultures, that we cling to them, even when they are obsolete, because we dont want to change.

I'm not talking about fearing change; I'm talking about the fear alot of men have toward women in general, yes its true most men are physically stronger then woman, I don't think you'll get any arguments there..so what was your point? But women are strong too just in diffrent ways, in some cases stronger then men, we can sustain pain much longer then men, its been scientifcally proven, we are emotionally, and mentally stronger then men in most cases., its not altogether true that men ruled tribes because you guys are stronger, and thats why women do the house work etc.. women were more often then not, pregnant, so they stayed closer to home and forged for food and did most of the work and heavy lifting while men hunted, and fought protected the cave from predators...

Even if you look at indigenious tribes now, you'll see the women doing all the work ,..while the men hunt

Quote:
Again with the male/female energy. Isn't it more than a tad sexist of you to say that there are energies that define every man or every woman? As for female energy being all peaceful, loving, and nurturing and the like, you have obviously never met anyone like my Mother. Claiming that male energy is destructive and agressive is a foolish generalization as well. I know plenty of men that work hard for peace and sanity.

I never said female energy is all peacful and loving, etc...you said that not me, female and male energy exist in both male and female its why we have some of the same hormones, women have more estrogen, and men have more testerone etc, and all males start off as females 1rst, its not a foolish generalization, I think even you can agree that males and females are diffrent. and I don't just mean sexually. Men are more agressive then women thats a scientific fact. Of course this isn't true of every man or woman but the majority ..yes

Quote:
et again, another foolish statement. ANY inequality is bad and WILL lead to supression. If women take over as completely as men have, the first thought would be that women are better and should have special priveledges. The simple fact is that women are human too, and have the same vulerability to greed and powerlust. What needs to happen is complete gender equality. Both sides having equal voice to force people to compromise.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

LOL!!! of course we are human did you ever doubt that we weren't...

I said that what we need is a balance of both energies, and right now we have an embalance with male energy being the dominating force, thats a statement of fact, nor am I saying that men are bad, I happen to love men...but yes since there is an imbalance I would prefere that it errr on the side of female energy.Although a balance of both view points, perspective, values, energies, in power would be the ideal.

I don't believe we women strive for balance, at the expense of men, we are the ones that gave birth to you, and brought you into this world, we love an need you guys to much to do that to you!! Perhaps that is our weakness, or our greatest strength.

But the fear men have of women, makes you strive to over power and dominate us at our and your own exspense, and that is one of the main reasons why this world is so efffed up as HKCAVALIER would say!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 4:35 AM

CYBERSNARK

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
Even if you look at indigenious tribes now, you'll see the women doing all the work ,..while the men hunt

Yeah. 'Cause hunting isn't work.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 8:14 AM

DANFAN

I'm gonna regret this...

All you people are missing the point of the movie. It's about our culture's will to discredit and destroy Magneto's power because he's a man.

Or old.

Or because Ian McKellan (the actor playing Magneto) is gay. It's a gay energy thing.

Or something.

Place your favorite reason here _________

All he was trying to do was empower his peeps... so the world goes all "he's got to be controlled" and stuff.

And what's with turning Xavier into chum? Is it because he's bald? I have my suspicions. Wolverine get's his ass handed to him several times in the movie... probably because he's a short-tempered thug. We have no cultural will for rehabilitation; we prefer punishment.

How come no one's caught on to this stuff?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 8:23 AM