Trigger Warning (1 Viewer)

[7 - No tomorrow]

I don't need to see the latest Michael Bay film to have a general idea on the style and quality of it.

The benghazi movie looks like a total change in direction.

You may have to see it!

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

it's not a turnaround; it's from two weeks ago

It's consistent with a boycott? The boycott is also from two weeks ago.

So she read the assurances of the people involved, wished them well and then organised a boycott?
Or organised a boycott, and read Emmerich's reaction to the trailer criticism and then said hopeful things, while leaving the boycott in place?

Either way, the two don't live together.

Her position is that no one should go see this movie because it erases history, but she truly hopes it's a great one that will strengthen a true understanding of LGBT history. Which she'll find out from traitors who break the boycott.

I'm glad she's being so clear about this.

 

[nooleen]

you're bitching about a boycott of a film which hasn't been released yet. meanwhile you haven't even bothered to read the rationale before going off on one about it, even though it's readily available.

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

I couldn't be more behind this from her though, on the boycott page

Tell your own history! Use social media to recall what you know to be true of Stonewall. Film your own short films. Make videos, write poems, sing songs. CONTINUE TO TEACH TRUE HISTORY.

Yes, get out and do something. Anything.
Tangerine was made on an iPhone and people loved it.
Make great art. Tell your stories.
Make a movie on Vine, or whatever it is that you kids use now.
Make something the people you love can get behind and celebrate.
There's never been a time in history when society has been as receptive to LGBT and particularly trans issues.
Write that thing.

 

[nooleen]

congrats on finally actually looking at the thing you're so worked up about.

where's that irony emoticon?

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

you're bitching about a boycott of a film which hasn't been released yet. meanwhile you haven't even bothered to read the rationale before going off on one about it, even though it's readily available.

I've read through the boycott page more than once.
And a bunch of stories on queer sites and the like and all through the comment sections. Something like this, the comment section fucking rules.


She's still being staggeringly inconsistent though. Don't see this movie which I hope will be great and important to the issues I care about.

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

congrats on finally actually looking at the thing you're so worked up about.

where's that irony emoticon?

It's linked from the USA Today story. I read it right away, two or three nights ago.
I wouldn't take USA Today at their word. I read her whole thing on Saturday after the bar. More than once. I'm not drinking, I need to occupy myself.

The reason I knew her hopeful statement was such a turnaround, was because I'd read her boycott statements right after I'd heard about it.
And a good number of the comments there too.

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

Seems to have slowed down though. It was at 23k signatures on Saturday too.

 

[nooleen]

She's still being staggeringly inconsistent though. Don't see this movie which I hope will be great and important to the issues I care about.

the boycott is based on the trailer. the 'hopeful statement' is based on the screenwriter's response to the boycott explaining that erasing dark-skinned trans people from the trailer was just a simple everyday marketing necessity.

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

the boycott is based on the trailer. the 'hopeful statement' is based on the screenwriter's response to the boycott explaining that erasing dark-skinned trans people from the trailer was just a simple everyday marketing necessity.

So it came after Emmerich's reaction to the boycott.
And Pat's position remains that no one should see this movie while also hoping that it could be a truly great one for the LGBT community that she can wholeheartedly support.
Crystal clear there, Pat. Nice one.

 

[nooleen]

to reiterate:

boycott: based on trailer
hope: based on assurance that trailer doesn't actually represent content of film

any lack of clarity originates with the filmmakers' choice of what to show in the trailer as compared to their claim of what is actually in the film

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

To reiterate

No one should go see this possibly wonderful LGBT film -- Pat

 

[nooleen]

to reiterate:
"my butt smells and i like to kiss my own butt" --7noT

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

to reiterate:
"my butt smells and i like to kiss my own butt" --7noT

Classic Nooly

But you (Nooly) honestly don't see the dissonance in telling people not to go see something you (Pat) admit that could be a great LGBT story?

It screams inherent contradiction at me.

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

Wait, is that the Simpsons or something?

ETA - it is

 

[nooleen]

Classic Nooly

But you (Nooly) honestly don't see the dissonance in telling people not to go see something you (Pat) admit that could be a great LGBT story?

It screams inherent contradiction at me.

no

because the boycott was based on the only available evidence, and the later statement was based on assurances that the trailer doesn't actually represent the film, which can't be tested until the film is out.

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

which can't be tested until the film is out.

And seen?

 

[nooleen]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[nooleen]

And seen?

no, just sensed from nearby

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

no, just sensed from nearby

So the only way to know if the boycott was proper is to break the boycott itself.

It's almost like people seeing the movie and having a conversation about what's actually in it is a better thing than no one seeing it at all but hate it anyway.
Maybe that's a radical thought though.