Damn, I thought somebody. Well, okay. Regarding the Bechdel Test, I think two things:
1. He does not tell whether a particular film (or other creative work) is good or not. science fiction films of last year, the Moon, for example, failed Bechdel test, especially since it’s about a man and isolation of man, and almost last year’s best science fiction films as one of the best films, period, year 2009 . On the other hand, as mentioned weeks ago, AVPR: Aliens vs Predator – Requiem pass the Bechdel test, and also gets my vote as a science fiction movie in the worst. Not all good films must pass a special test, and bad movies no credit for doing it.
2. Bechdel test statistic is not testing any film or work, but to draw attention to the general mind-set in Hollywood. Or in other words, in general, what is so difficult to have enough female characters in the film that they both can not call one, about a man? No, although I realize that there are many reasons for that, especially for science fiction movies. In that case, many reasons seem to boil this down: the science fiction movie made for and marketed to men.
This surprises me rationalization. When I go to science fiction movies, I saw many women who refuse to be dragged there, ook not seem to make the science fiction film to attract so they can call mann hun Nicholas Sparks next to a movie. I do not “buy by the people, for a man” line of science fiction films and certainly not for films such as Inception, Avatar, Star Trek, humiliated me, Monsters vs. Aliens, and a few of the most successful recent particular this science fiction film. (I admit that Transformers and Iron Man is a movie kids.)
Secondly, even if science fiction films made for and marketed to men, so what? This means that if a person is faced with a cinematic characters of the two women talk about something else later in life, their reaction will be to their eyes and clutch the ball fell to the ground and shouted: “It burns”? Outdoor in the real world, people are confronted with the sight of women talking about different things almost every day, yet somehow to survive. Science fiction should be about the future, so I do not think it would be difficult to dropping in the cinematic arm today.
Full disclosure: I write science fiction, and not all of them reach the Bechdel-osity, either. I found the test useful to me asking if I was an artistic reason, not just, ‘Oh, forget the woman maintained a life outside of the men. ”
Next question:
I love Inception. I fear the inevitable Inception 2. Tell me I’m just paranoid.
You’re not paranoid. Early will pass 200 million U.S. dollars in the country, not as good or better internationally, great prices on video, and various awards shelf end-of-the-year, very possible, including an Oscar nod for Best Picture and Best Director, not only for themselves but as a way for the Academy to make up stiffing The Dark Knight. If you do not think Warner Brothers is not drooling for the sequel, you’re crazy.
Inception But a sequel would be harder to draw than it looks. For one thing, a sequel starring Leonardo DiCaprio. The correct answer: Critters 3. But that was when she was 17 and still doing TV. Since then no sequel to a CV, which is sort of amazing when you think about it. DiCaprio does not need a sequel or a franchise. As for Nolan, he is interested in a franchise, but he’s got a tendency to a Batman. Early is a labor of love for him, and I think maybe he liked that place left very ambiguous stand on their own feet.
My prediction: if a sequel will start DiCaprio is not a star or feature characters, and will not be directed by Nolan. Nolan will produce and may have a story credit, but someone else will write the script and direct. The real question is whether people will see it continue without Inception DiCaprio and Nolan. My short answer: it will not on my list.
No related posts.