Jump to content
đź”’ The Earwolf Forums are closed Read more... Ă—

taylor anne photo

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    3661

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    108

Posts posted by taylor anne photo

  1. Posted

    8 hours ago, Blast Hardcheese said:

    Is Hobb’s daughter’s mother dead and was this already mention in a previous F&F film? Who took care of Hobb’s daughter when Hobb’s went out on missions/got imprisoned/beat asses like Cherokee drums in the previous films if he’s estranged from his extended family?

    New theory! The Eteon voice is the mother cause she's pissed as fuck that he took her daughter away. Or she's just actually always been a villain and that is why he took the daughter away.

    • Like 5

  3. Posted

    Okay I believe it is time for the moments in movies when I get most frustrated...

    That's right it's time for This Week in Feminism.

    I was delighted to hear an audience member mention things that I also wanted to mention, because one of my first points was, "Where are the fucking women?" But the response of the crew didn't satisfy me and here's why -

    Yes, Hattie is a badass through and through. She was an operative for MI6 and went head to head with Luke Hobbs without even blinking an eye. She sacrificed herself so that Idris Elba wouldn't get the virus, and at the end of the day it was her plan that got the blood machine so that she could ultimately live. Definitely a badass. However, that doesn't actually answer the question. Hattie is one woman. To answer the question, "Where are the women?" with, "Well Hattie is a badass," implies that multiple women can't just be in scenes talking to each other because we already have the one woman being a badass and that's good enough right? They also mentioned the team of vigilante women lead by Eiza Gonzalez in Russia, but here's my problem with them - Only Eiza has any lines. There are 4 other women in this group and their only purpose for this movie is to look sexy in lingerie and be intimidating. That's not really showing any other badass women considering we never actually got to see them in action. The marketing for this movie completely hyped up Eiza's role and it really disappointed me that she didn't have anything better to do for a longer portion of the movie.

    Michelle Rodriguez had posted after F8 that if this franchise didn't step up it's representation of women then she would leave the series, and I think with this movie they took one tiny baby step in the right direction. Now I know this movie is a spin-off and has nothing to do with the set of movies that Michelle was actually talking about because she's in the camp of "fuck Hobbs & Shaw" but it's still part of the series none the less. With Hattie being a total badass and being central to the plot instead of a side character I do think that they want women to be part of the story, but in my opinion, even though Hattie is a total badass, she's just a plot point she's not actually involved in her own story a la Natalie Portman in Thor: The Dark World. If you took that virus out of Hattie's blood she no longer becomes relevant to this story, and it still all resolves around Hobbs & Shaw more than likely doing the bulk of the work to get the virus away from Eteon. She's kidnapped twice to be rescued by the two men, and in the final climax fight of the whole movie she's regulated to sitting in the rain with a gun pointed at her head. To me, this isn't badass empowering writing. This is lazy "feminism" that is stuck in the early 2000s.

    But honestly the thing that frustrated me the most is that this didn't even pass The Bechdel Test. It would've been so fucking easy for them to do. They had multiple named women who were literally standing in the same room together, but never once do any of them address each other, instead they talk to the men about things the other woman brought up instead.

    • The female guard with Helen Mirren doesn't have a name - Fail
    • Hattie is the only woman on her entire team - Fail
    • Eiza is the only named and speaking woman on her team - Fail
    • Hobb's daughter never speaks to the woman she is staying with - Fail
    • Hattie and Eiza stand face to face and only talk to Hobbs & Shaw - Fail
    • Hobbs's mother doesn't have a name (she is named on IMDB but they never once say it in the movie) - Fail
    • There are no lines between Helen Mirren and Hattie at the end of the movie - Fail

    It's the simplest of things that in 2019 should literally be the bare minimum for writing female characters. I'm not asking for the entire story to be changed, because honestly the overarching thing doesn't bother me despite poking holes in the "baddassery" of it. But to not have two women even speak to each other when they're literally standing face to face discussing ultimate plans for how to get a blood machine is absolutely ridiculous.

    Literally I just want women to be able to talk to each other about things not related to men. That would be grand.

    • Like 12

  4. Posted

    Just now, Smigg. said:

    Deckard killed Han in the post-credits scene of Fast 6, tying him to the scene in Tokyo Drift.  He then got out of the car saying "Dominic Toretto, we're gonna meet very soon"

    Then, in Samoa, he implied that he feels guilty for killing Han.

    Oh right yes okay, cause that was like a revenge killing for them killing Owen, right? For some reason I replaced Deckard with Owen in my memory but you typing out the line brought it back.

  5. Posted

    3 minutes ago, Smigg. said:

    She was Owen Shaw's girlfriend, so she knows Deckard Shaw

    Speaking of Owen Shaw - I feel like this franchise forgot that he existed. All those flashbacks and the way that Helen Mirren talks it's just always been Deckard and Hattie, but legit Owen Shaw was a character, and isn't that who actually killed Han? Or am I not remembering this whole story line properly?

    • Like 1

  6. Posted

    2 minutes ago, Elektra Boogaloo said:

    @taylorannephoto and @tomspanks and I are going to have a spinoff called How Did This Get Made Up. (Also for the record I always refused to use Kat Von D's eyeliner because I disliked her and now I feel vindicated. I just got a Maybelline gel eyeliner that is supposed to be real good. Will keep you posted.)

    I'm currently using Nyx's liquid liner and it's A+++!

    Also, I heard on Natch Beaut someone say that Tom Ford's liner is actually supposed to be like the new KVD because everyone is looking for that same quality without all the terribleness.

    • Like 3

  7. Posted

    I'm worried that Paul doesn't understand how chests are actually measured. He mentions that the McLaren is generously 80 inches wide, measuring from one end of the interior to the other, and that The Rock is about 50 inches while Statham is 41 inches, but I'm very worried that they do not know when you are measuring your chest you measure around your body. It's the circumference that gives you that number. There's no way that those measurements make sense if you are measuring their chests from arm pit to arm pit alone. That would mean that The Rock's width from arm pit to arm pit would be over 4 feet long. That's literally not possible, y'all. Any woman getting measured for a bra knows this lol.

    • Like 12

  8. Posted

    18 minutes ago, Elektra Boogaloo said:

    - I am very glad Nicole was there to bring up Vanessa Kirby's eyeliner because it bugged me the ENTIRE movie. Now I've only recently gotten into makeup tutorials on YouTube (if you have free time check out the drama around Jacyln Hill's lipstick line launch. It's wild.)  I cannot do a winged eyeliner to save my life; they always come off. So I was impressed that the eyeliner stayed on for THREE FUCKING DAYS. But what amused me the most was that she did put on more makeup in the brief scene where she had the wig on, and she had bright red lips. But that look all comes off... when the Rock snatches her wig off? Again, not a makeup expert, but I am pretty sure that's not how it works.

    This is truly a thing that bothers me in ALL media! Every time a wig gets snatched or a super hero takes off their mask (looking at you The Flash & Arrow) someone's makeup magically changes! And truly I wish we had gotten a full getting ready in her disguise montage instead of her walking into the hotel room and then she's just ready in the next shot.

    However I will say if you wear Kat Von Dee's eyeliner (I mean don't now because she's revealed herself to be an anti-vaxxing racist) that shit legit does stay on for forever. But that doesn't explain the rest of her makeup because she's very obviously got on mascara and eyeshadow and there's nothing in those worlds that won't smudge after three days.

    • Like 8

  9. Posted

    giphy.gif

    Surprise bitches I'm back.

    Since Hobbs & Shaw drops tomorrow I had to come back to reveal my thoughts, because oh boy do I have them lol. I'm very excited to bring back This Week In Feminism too, because even though I was gone for a few months does not mean I have changed a thing lol. Buckle up, y'all lol.

    I also had to come back once I heard them announce 2:22 because, while I have not seen that movie so I'm sure it is terrible, Michiel Huisman is my fucking man, y'all. Ever since I saw him on Orphan Black I have been in love with him, and he is a much better actor than I'm sure they will talk about so no matter what I have to defend this stupid movie. Go watch Hill House cause that is a much better representation of his skills lmao. But he's so hot y'all. He's just so hot.

    • Like 8

  10. Posted

    6 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

    Well, this sucks. It’s my birthday this weekend. Please stay. :( 

     

    6 hours ago, grudlian. said:

    If you feel this place is unwelcoming or if dipshits from reddit are talking shit, I understand why you want to leave. But, as Cameron said, please stay. 

    I appreciate these, and I do regret saying that this place is a dumpster fire now because ultimately that's not true. However, things have been feeling different lately, and considering the things that have been said towards me in these kind of instances it leads me to believe that I am part of the problem here. So I think it's just best for everyone, mainly myself, that I take an extremely extended hiatus from the forums.

    • Like 2

  11. Posted

    11 hours ago, theworstbuddhist said:

    Just curious, what do you think you're accomplishing here, rhetorically speaking? Are you trying to imply that I don't think rape is bad? You feel my phrase that you called out is insufficient to cover the actions of some in Hollywood who are criminals? I disagree. Rapists and abusers are absolutely shitty people.

    So what's your purpose here, apart from trying to reassert some kind of weird alpha-poster dominance with your hair-splitting and your "impressive" signature? I have neither the time nor patience for this. If you just want to put words in my mouth or nitpick to serve your own agenda, kindly don't bother replying next time, or just mute me, as I certainly plan to do with you.

    You know what you were inferring with that statement. I quoted everything you said back at you so there's literally no putting any words into your mouth. You literally stated that even shitty artists can be on our side and to instead concentrate on "actual" enemies. I pointed out the difference between just "shitty" and physical abuse and that those artists are in fact not on the right fucking side. If you want so badly to dodge being called out then fine, but don't try and act like you weren't doing what you literally did.

    But yeah you're sooo right, I'm just trying to be number one here instead of being absolutely fucking triggered by this whole fucking conversation and try and keep my god damn cool and listen to literally everyone's point of view in the most civil way possible and then call out some total fucking bull shit when it happens. But it seems like if you plan on muting me (eye roll) then you won't even see this so this is mainly for myself because lmao what the fuck ever.

    Actually maybe this is just the right time to say I'm fucking leaving. This place used to be a literal safe haven (no pun intended considering they covered that movie) and now it's a god damn dumpster fire.

    I hope everyone feels the absolute joy of my departure that they seem to be clamoring for since I'm so fucking hated by the whole god damn fanbase for my favorite fucking podcast.

    • Like 1

  12. Posted

    6 minutes ago, theworstbuddhist said:

    I guess my point is, if you want to battle the evil in your world, artists of any type are probably already on your side, even if they are shitty people. You can concentrate on actual enemies like, say, your rapist "president" and his oligarch masters first.

    There's a difference between "shitty people" and an actor that was accused of beating his girlfriend, or say a director that was convicted of raping a 13 year old girl and fled the country to avoid sentencing, or say a producer that raped multiple women over decades.

    Also... it's almost as if we can concentrate on multiple issues at once...

    • Like 2

  13. Posted

    34 minutes ago, gigi-tastic said:

    I take umbrage to the idea we were fighting on the message boards. As far as I could see it was business as usual. There was a lot of discussion about baseball that I didn't understand but I don't think that got particularly heated? Am I missing something?

    I feel like as of late there's been a lot of misunderstanding of how we all talk to each other on the boards. Paul inferred something similar during the Snow White conversation over on the Unspooled side of the forums and he said that we all didn't want it on the list because it's problematic now and I was like wait what? No one even talked about the problematic side of the film???

    • Like 2

  14. Posted

    8 hours ago, gigi-tastic said:

    It's really not about the money for me so much as I feel like when I do buy their stuff (even older stuff in some people's case) it's like I'm saying " I support you and I don't care what you did. "

    I think this is what I was trying to get to. It doesn't matter how much it is to me because it's still a message of support and I am actively choosing to contribute something to them, and that's not something that sits right with me.

    • Like 3

  15. Posted

    5 minutes ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

    That contribution seems very minor, though. Like, so minor as to basically not matter or have any real impact on their future career prospects.

    But this is also something I very much care about: being able to view and study past works in a medium I love (film). To me that overrides whatever minimal impact an iTunes rental might have on someone's pocketbook.

    That's not the point though. I don't care if it's minimal in your personal outlook, but if we're talking about contributing to them then money is indeed a contribution. It may only end up being $0.10 but that's ten cents *I* worked hard for and that's ten cents *I* could instead add to my donation to RAIN or to Planned Parenthood or to literally any other movie that doesn't have an abuser in it. There are millions of them out there.

    Again it's your personal decision, but it feels important to me to comment on these lines that we've all drawn up.

  16. Posted

    3 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

    Ha! I almost asked if we should all watch A League if Their Own to balance the scales, but I was afraid it would come off snarky and I really didn’t want that.  :) 

    I wasn't sure if I wanted to admit this but I should own my truth in that I have never actually seen A League of Their Own. I just know everything that happens and feel like I have seen the movie but legit I have not lol.

    • Like 1

  17. Posted

    11 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

    I was thinking about this earlier today, and I get this is a very specific example, but what about supporting the abused? In this case, not supporting Penn also means not supporting Madonna. Granted, I don’t think she really needs the residuals from people watching Shanghai Surprise, but should she be punished because he’s an ass? 

    I guess I’m falling a bit on Paul’s side from the Unspooled episode. A lot of people worked on Chinatown, should they be punished because they unknowingly worked with a monster? Should we ignore the work of the other actors, cameramen, writers, sound editors, composers etc, because they worked with someone who turned out to be a piece of shit?

    It’s a tough nut to crack. It really is. And for me, it really comes down to when I first experienced their work. I think it also makes a difference if the person is in front or behind the camera. Since I’ve never seen them, I know I will never now be able to watch American Beauty or The Usual Suspects. I don’t care how good they are. I won’t be able to get passed Kevin Spacey. I guess it really comes down to how people can compartmentalize . 

    And, like SyCasey alluded to, there are so many garbage people out there. I’m sure there are terrible people who work on every movie, show, song, whatever. Where do we draw the line? If Ringo’s drum technician is a serial killer, do we stop buying Beatles records? What’s different between that and being an actor-for-higher beyond visibility?

    Personally, if I don't want to support Shanghai Surprise but I would like to support Madonna, then I'll go out of my way to do something else for her or anyone else ya know? Unless someone truly never did anything before or after this movie then there are other opportunities to support those people in other ways. I can buy a Madonna song for the same price as this movie was available to rent, or I can watch something else with Jack Nicholson and Faye Dunnaway.

    It really is a tough nut to crack and it's probably something we're all going to be discussing not only with each other but with ourselves for years to come, because truly I haven't even come to a solidified answer for myself yet, but I know I'm like you in that if there are things I've never heard or seen then I'm definitely now never going to watch or listen to them. I'm fine with never seeing Chinatown now because it's never going to be anything different for me than a movie by a convicted pedophile who escaped from his punishment.

    • Like 1

  18. Posted

    31 minutes ago, gigi-tastic said:

    Agreed. However I also agree that sometimes you can separate the work from the artist it's just where you personally say this is something I cannot forgive. It's very tricky. I love Picasso but abhor Picasso. However he's dead and I'm never going to be in a position to own a piece of his work.

    I think using Picasso as an example is probably not the most fair considering yeah we're never going to afford a real Picasso painting and he's dead.

    Like I said though it's a personal choice. We just did Chinatown on Unspooled a few weeks back and while I know the woman has made a statement about not wanting to be used as a martyr for people to boycott Polanski, I can never erase that from my mind and I refuse to participate in giving him any money, especially as a survivor of assault myself.

    It's a conversation I think people have had over and over and while I still think it's a personal decision I also think it just so easily gets tossed aside with a separation of art and artist thing, but sooo many times we see the artist put their abuse into their art (looking at you Woody Allen making Manhattan) and I live paycheck to paycheck and work way too fucking hard for how little I make to just turn around and put more money into the pockets of these billionaire abusers.

    ETA: This comes off super judgey and I apologize, cause I truly couldn't care less what people choose to do, but I think if we're having the conversation and we're all saying where we personally are drawing these lines then it needs to be really talked about.

    • Like 1

  19. Posted

    34 minutes ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

    I understand not wanting to support new work from these people, but for old stuff I've decided that I'm fine with watching it. If I had to cut out all old artwork from potentially abusive people I would be missing out on a lot.

    But even old work, if paid for, gives money to said abusers. Many artists get royalties or residuals based off of if something airs on television or gets purchased off of iTunes. So this is really a personal decision for everyone, but don't think that just because you're not purchasing something new that you're not still putting money in their pockets.

    • Like 3

  21. Posted

    1 hour ago, SaraK said:

    I feel bad I derailed things a bit! I'll try to pop in when I can, I love when I get the chance to participate. I just honestly am so brain dead after work lately (which is a huge difference from my last job where I was literally watching movies during work hours). Miss hanging out here with you guys ❤️

    Sara nooo! If anyone started the derailing it was me over Christmas cause I think we've all been trying to get back on track since then lol.

    • Like 2

  24. Posted

    On 5/11/2019 at 8:50 PM, ol' eddy wrecks said:

    Aside comment - the podcast mentioned how this was the rare (only?) Oscar BP that was released in February.  My recollection is, it came out in February, but then was re-released close to the end of the year when they felt they had a shot at the Oscars (admittedly a memory from when I was a teenager, and as I write it, it feels weird that that is something I think I remember).  One of the more overt Oscar campaigning practices.

    I did a quick search and it's wikipedia entry made it sound like it never actually stopped showing until October of 1991, but that almost seems impossible for a movie to stay in theaters that long!

    The exact quote is: "The Silence of the Lambs was released on February 14, 1991, grossing $14 million during its opening weekend. At the time it closed on October 10, 1991, the film had grossed $131 million domestically with a total worldwide gross of $273 million."

    But either way it seems like your memory is correct!

  25. Posted

    3 hours ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

    Well, within the context of the movie they say he's not untalented, he's just too difficult to work with. So he starts getting work because he's in disguise, not specifically because he's a woman.

    Anyway, I'm not commenting on the later plot developments once he's disguised as a woman, more the setup that he has trouble getting work and yet is supposed to be a talented actor. I think that is actually decently explained in the movie.

    *He* makes it about gender though.

    And anyway, you commented on a comment that was a reply to my comment that has to do with the gender politics of the concept so 🤷‍♀️

×