[ SECRET POST #2604 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2604 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Star Trek: The Next Generation]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Sherlock BBC]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Elementary]


__________________________________________________



06.
[SPN]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Pacific Rim]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Harry Potter]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Game of Thrones]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Thor: Dark World]


__________________________________________________



11.
[Breaking Bad]


__________________________________________________



12.
[My Neighbor Totoro]


__________________________________________________



13.
[Robocop]


__________________________________________________



14.
[Unsounded]


















Notes:

Sorry about the late!

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 051 secrets from Secret Submission Post #372.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 2 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

As long as you don't start with the whole "Mako Mori Test" bullshit, yeah, I can see your point, diversity-wise. I just wish people would stop being so blinded by it that they refuse to acknowledge the film's faults wrt the other "ism."

[(Anonymous)]

Oh for the love of fuck just goddamn spell it out. Or if you're too goddamn lazy to spell it out, then just use "with." The rest of the phrase is superfluous, anyway.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

WRT your comment, there is not enough eyeroll in the world.

[(Anonymous)]

Why the fuck does every little thing have to be a goddamned motherfucking acronym?

We're not fucking texting pre-smart phone. There's no fucking character limit. You aren't going to get charged anything. SO WHY THE FUCK CAN'T YOU SPELL OUT YOUR GODDAMNED FUCKING WORDS? How the fuck are you that goddamned lazy?

[(Anonymous)]

Whoa, over-invested Pacific Rim fan.

[(Anonymous)]

Are you kidding? I haven't even seen it! I just hate so many simple phrases being made into pointless acronyms.

SO I'M AN OVER-INVESTED FAN OF FULLY SPELLED OUT WORDS AND PHRASES.

[waterfall8484]

Tl;dr.

[(Anonymous)]

I have to admit, that's a good comeback.

[(Anonymous)]

are you literally yelling in your head right now over someone using acronyms?


poor bb.

[(Anonymous)]

No, I am yelling IN THE FORM OF PUBLICLY POSTED WRITTEN WORDS.

[terabient]

...what's the 'Mako Mori Test?'

[(Anonymous)]

Does the movie:
(a) have at least one female character, who
(b) has her own narrative arc, that
(c) does not revolve around supporting a man

It has fewer female characters as an actual success-condition than the Bechdel test, but imposes a higher standard of female-character-actually-being-an-entire-person-who-does-things.

[blunderbuss]

What's wrong the Mako Mori Test? I thought it was a pretty neat idea, actually.

[(Anonymous)]

There's nothing wrong with the Bechdel Test, though. It demonstrates the presence of female characters in the cast. Personally, I think that calling for the widespread use of Mako Mori Test kind of sucks because there's no reason on the face of the planet why there cannot be more than one named female character with a speaking role and her own plot independent of a male. It seems to me kind of like an excuse- like, "this movie fails the Bechdel Test but, seriously, it exceeds that lousy test and we should have our own test because a movie with one speaking female character broke ground..." I just don't buy that.

[blunderbuss]

There's plenty wrong with the Bechdel Test. MovieBob absolutely nails it, but long story short? Passing or failing the test can have absolutely no bearing on how feminist or ground-breaking or progressive the film is.

ariakas below mentioned the film Gravity, which would fail. Nevermind that there's only four characters in it, nevermind that the female character has her own arc, nevermind that she's the ONLY character for the majority of the film, nevermind that it goddamn proves that a sci-fi/thriller can have a central female lead and be a success. She didn't talk to a chick, so the film 'fails', which spits on everything this film achieved.

So, sure, we need more female characters in films. We ALSO need more GOOD female characters and more female MAIN characters, which the Bechdel Test does fuck-all to ensure.

And besides, why is it either/or? Why can't both rules, each designed to cover a different problem with women in film, be used in tandem? There is no one rule that can cover every problem in every film, so why stick to just one?

[(Anonymous)]

I absolutely agree that the Bechdel Test is flawed in terms of some magical pass/fail system whereby any lousy 2 second conversation between female characters, no matter how stereotypical, would garner the movie a "passing grade." But the Bechdel Test is valuable in terms of overall examination of female presence in the film. Besides, like you say- why should it be either an independent female character or overall female presence? I just chafe at the MM test a bit because I think it is a shortcoming of that film in particular that there was only one female character in a fairly large ensemble (which makes it no different from a number of films)- because I think it creates the idea that you don't need more than one female character in a large cast, so long as you've done a pretty good job fleshing her out. I just don't think that's good enough.

[skippydelicious]

Bechdel is meant to have an incredibly low benchmark for passing it. Its purpose isn't to give films that pass it a pat on the back, but to highlight that even with such an incredibly low bar to jump just how many movies still fail. Passing isn't an "atta boy", but failing it is a "dude, what the hell? You still cannot get your shit together?".

[(Anonymous)]

Do you know who started using it as a test, though? I know that it's derived from the conversation in the lesbian comic by Bechdel in the 80s but I don't know who decided to apply it to films.

[ariakas]

It implicitly gives permission to just have one female character/The Girl of the group, provided she gets her own backstory. It does absolutely nothing to improve the staggering lack of female representation in the industry.

I think it's fine for films like, say, Gravity where there are only two or three characters period, but when there's only one major female character in a huge cast that is just fucking tiresome, even if the one woman is awesome.

[blunderbuss]

What? No it doesn't. That's like saying the Bechdel Test gives permission for a story to have a bunch of shallow female background characters as long as they talk to each other for one or two lines. It sure as hell doesn't prevent tokenism or having male-heavy casts, because many films pass the test but still have only one female character that matters.

The Bechdel Test and the Mako Mori Test were designed to do two different things, so of course neither rule fixes the problem that the other was made for. If the MMT is a bad rule because it can't fix every problem with female characters, then the BT sure as hell a bad rule too.

[ariakas]

That's like saying the Bechdel Test gives permission for a story to have a bunch of shallow female background characters as long as they talk to each other for one or two lines.

But... that's exactly what it does, inherently. It's just as flawed as the Mako Mori test in this regard. I never said it wasn't. If there's a bunch of shallow female characters who talk to each other about something other than a man, but otherwise trivial or stereotypical topics, it passes the Bechdel Test. If a cast has The Girl/Smurfette in a whole cast of men, but it gives her an independent story arc, it passes the Mako Mori test.

You asked "what's wrong with the Mako Mori test", and I gave you an answer. That it was flawed, and why. I Never said "the Mako Mori test sux and the Bechdel test rulz", which seems to be what you're responding too.

[blunderbuss]

I Never said "the Mako Mori test sux and the Bechdel test rulz", which seems to be what you're responding too.

Sorry, that was my fault. Your choice of the words 'gives permission' gave me the impression that the Mako Mori Test was encouraging or re-enforcing sexist writing while the Bechdel Test did not.

And you're right, that is the MMT's central flaw, and it's an important flaw to point out. Thanks for answering me despite my lack of reading comprehension. :P

[ariakas]

Hahah I thought that might have been the misunderstanding there. I've seen a lot of Bechdel versus Mako Mori debate out there, but that wasn't where I was going with it.

But their flaws aside, I think one excellent thing the Bechdel test does - as many others have pointed out - is indicate overall trends across many movies, and note how 50% of the population becomes 17% on screen.

The Mako Mori test, on the other hand, I think is great at indicating the creator's view on women. Just having a female character does not a feminist creator make - it might be a cynical "this will attract female viewers" or a marketing "this needs a romance, and gays are icky", or a token "eh, they need The Chick" decision - but if the creator goes and fleshes her out with a backstory and a narrative arc, we know s/he gives a shit about the character. Whether those arcs are pandering or stereotypical or preachy, or they're inspiring and thoughtful and actualized, we learn something about their views. If there's no character like that, we learn nothing.