Post by Diet Kolos on Apr 30, 2022 17:16:11 GMT -5
And its funny, its the "little boy voice" that I was kind of hoping for when I first found out. Harkening back to Trace's original Crow, but there's a little of..."WHOAHHHH" manic energy that is just...off.
Post by euphoriafish on May 3, 2022 13:58:06 GMT -5
Hello everyone! I don't post here very often but I love the tone of the community here and the technologically slower speed of this ProBoards forum.
I haven't been able to see the Live Shows so you've got me curious about Nate Begel's Crow.
I haven't seen three episodes with the new cast members yet and I want to refrain from a blanket thumbs up or thumbs down of any person. The show stays on the airwaves by having roles and functions that a lot of different people can step into. I need three episodes with the same cast member before I really know if I like them, then I'd rather be very specific in my comments.
My first reaction is that Emily is more theatrically trained and less musical plus higher energy than Jonah. Kelsey's Crow is delightfully tomboyish and manic, a little bit like Bill but also her own version that I need to see more of to really know what she brought of herself to the role.
I always want to love this show. I had a very mixed reaction to this one due to writing and sound choices.
Kudos to Dave (Torgo) Rogers's review of this episode. I think he was fair with regard to the film's content and how it was handled. He sounds like he doesn't have my trigger sensitivities but he is aware of them! I really appreciate you, Dave, after my reaction thread on the Discours forum was met with toxically masculine rebuttals by even some women.
The TLDR reaction I had was: * This script is rapey. * The visuals are toned down so the filmmakers could make more money. (And they didn't. The dickweeds lost money after they tried to sell bukkake as family friendly.) * What is personally triggering to me is the repetition of grabby, predatory motions by a group of men who outnumber the one trophy woman who has no choice in having to mate with one of them. * More triggering is the line from one of the men that tells the one woman to enjoy what he wants to do to her. I do not believe she agrees. * There are three groups in a Gizmoplex viewing-- the men in the movie (grabby predators), the riffers (two women at a sausage party speaking with male persona voices and pretending to be the greasy predators), and the chat audience shouting "pearls"and cheering on the sexual imagery.
I shared my perspective on the Discours and was heckled as an art stopper trying to take down the show. I got 500+ likes by people who mostly didn't comment; in most of the comments I got attacked. Commenters didn't see what I saw, said the imagery was toned down, said the emoji I used plus calling a spade a spade was more offensive than the pearl nets hitting the bikini girls in the movie. There is also a point - counterpoint on whether a content advisory and community reaction system are necessary. A few people agreed with me that it doesn't hurt, many others said it pains them to be told what to think about a film before they watch. I just assumed their eyes would glaze over and they would watch it anyway, parenting around it with their kids or letting their kids watch it by themselves while the parents are at work anyway. But I like content icons and ratings being there anyway for those of us who think it's important to screen movies and prepare our parenting around them.
The question of the thread I started on Discours is, is this film a level of misogyny and violence that merits a content advisory, or is it average for MST3K? Opposing perspective's best point was that most of the films riffed have outdated content that treats women poorly. I am arguing that a few of them are more toxic for having more repetitions and also two senses (both sight and sound) used to dominate women at the same time. Also, the key woman seems silent about what is happening to her and I feel the riffers had the option to give her more individual identity around the movie but they didn't.
I don't want the show controlled by network notes or the movie heavily edited. I want the riffers to add information and perspective around what is in the movie, and to please not add more normalization of rape. They could have chosen to shout louder that the trophy woman is a comfort woman.
Most people don't watch movies like a Japan Studies student reading a book about rape of women by drunk US Marines on leave. I know I'm in the minority. I was just surprised how the writing on the show and the tone in the forum has shifted to more hypermasculine and cheering on the misogyny.
Ironically, I won the Respect badge for my cultural discussion thread everyone was hating on.
I swear, I've re-read that 3 times now, thinking I missed something. And every time I think I understand the point a little better, I see another nugget of randomness that pops its head out and flabbergasts me. Is this satire? Am I having a stroke?
Last Edit: May 3, 2022 14:24:23 GMT -5 by Diet Kolos