[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

pop culture

Originally Posted by ort888 

popular entertainment.

10/10 reading comprehension.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

10/10 reading comprehension.

I sure wish our entertainments were an intrinsic part of our culture, they're so divergent.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I've always thought that the test means more on a larger scale. Of course you can cherry pick single shitty movies that pass and classics that don't - none of that negates what the test measures.

But what if only 5% of movies that came out this year pass the test? 50%? 75%? What does it say about the state of entertainment? What does it say about the roles that young girls see and model themselves after? What does it say that we've seen a steady increase in movies that pass, especially over the past 30 years?

It says nothing.

If the movie is about two friends and one has a brother, and they talk about him, the test fails. That's what's so stupid about it. The test almost makes you want to believe men don't exist in these movies. Guess what? They do. So how can the test even think about passing most of the time when, by default, all women have fathers? Women don't talk about their dads/brothers/roommates/boyfriends/landlords/nephews/cousins?

[andi*pandi]

The point of the test is highlighting when women have more to talk about than just men, or more distinctly, men they find dreamy. It doesn't mean men don't exist, or they can't talk to/about their fathers, (sigh) it means that, do women exist as more than a personality-less cardboard cutout for a) the male main character to "win" or b) male viewers to fantasize over?

The higher bar for me rather than breaking down men into love interests/family/friends/coworker categories, it is impossible for two women to have a conversation, because there are rarely two women with speaking roles, or are they deemed important enough to the plot to have them talk. Even the Avengers, do Black Widow and Hill ever chat? Pepper? I'm sure the internet knows, I don't recall.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

So, the sooner we kill romcoms, the better off we'll be? I concur.

[starman]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

The point of the test is highlighting when women have more to talk about than just men, or more distinctly, men they find dreamy. It doesn't mean men don't exist, or they can't talk to/about their fathers, (sigh) it means that, do women exist as more than a personality-less cardboard cutout for a) the male main character to "win" or b) male viewers to fantasize over?

But that's not what the comic/test says, so....

EDIT: Example - S vs. B passes. Why? Because Lois never talks to Diana. Therefore, the movie passes despite weak female roles.

[P]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I've always thought that the test means more on a larger scale. Of course you can cherry pick single shitty movies that pass and classics that don't - none of that negates what the test measures.

But what if only 5% of movies that came out this year pass the test? 50%? 75%? What does it say about the state of entertainment? What does it say about the roles that young girls see and model themselves after? What does it say that we've seen a steady increase in movies that pass, especially over the past 30 years?

This. To use the test to judge single movies goes wrong - Gravity famously fails both the Bechdel and the reverse Bechdel test, but that is hardly they type of movie this test is supposed to criticize - but it is useful as a statistic.

[P]

Originally Posted by starman 

But that's not what the comic/test says, so....

EDIT: Example - S vs. B passes. Why? Because Lois never talks to Diana. Therefore, the movie passes despite weak female roles.

I haven't seen that movie, but you're misreading the test. The requirement is that a movie must have two women who have a conversation about something other than men - that is, count the number of conversations between women and subtract the ones that are about men.

[starman]

Originally Posted by P 

This. To use the test to judge single movies goes wrong - Gravity famously fails both the Bechdel and the reverse Bechdel test, but that is hardly they type of movie this test is supposed to criticize - but it is useful as a statistic.

Have you even SEEN the spin on bechdeltest.com? "This movie fails, but it passes in the spirit of it". What's the spirit, exactly? They give Ghostbusters a pass despite the women talking about men several times. How does that happen when Wiig is ALL. OVER. Hemsworth? And they talk about him and several other men multiple times?

Yeah, the test doesn't mean jack. It's a publicity vehicle.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Ghostbusters, going by the test, fails spectacularly, but is given a pass because "girl power", or whatever.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Ghostbusters, going by the test, fails spectacularly, but is given a pass because "girl power", or whatever.

Exactly this.

[ort888]

It's not that they can never talk about a man. It's that at some point, they talk about something other than a man. Ghostbusters very easily passes the Bechtel test.

The test itself is a silly little distraction. When you apply it to any one movie, it means very little.

It's just pointing out a trend. Most films are driven forward by the actions of men. Most movies are primarily about men and what men are doing. Women frequently serve as nothing more than motivation for men or as a reward for men. They may as well be a prop.

Again, this doesn't mean that all of these movies are bad, or that men are bad, or any such nonsense. It's just bringing attention to something that is viewed as a problem by many people.

[andi*pandi]

^^yeah that!

The test doesn't say they can *never* talk about/to men, but that they need to have one conversation, in the whole movie, that is not about men. I'm pretty sure that Ghostbusters had that all over. They talked about publishing that book, they talked about building gadgets, they talked about all kinds of things.

Now, "about men"...
Pam: "Susan, I need to give these reports to Commander Riker today."
Pam: "Susan, doesn't Commander Riker look fiiiine today!"

which of these is about men?

[starman]

Originally Posted by ort888 

It's not that they can never talk about a man. It's that at some point, they talk about something other than a man. Ghostbusters very easily passes the Bechtel test.

The test itself is a silly little distraction. When you apply it to any one movie, it means very little.

It's just pointing out a trend. Most films are driven forward by the actions of men. Most movies are primarily about men and what men are doing. Women frequently serve as nothing more than motivation for men or as a reward for men. They may as well be a prop.

Again, this doesn't mean that all of these movies are bad, or that men are bad, or any such nonsense. It's just bringing attention to something that is viewed as a problem by many people.

Still stupid. Back to the Future fails. Why? Because Jennifer only talks to men. However, the whole motivation of Marty to get back is because of Jennifer! So in this case, the male lead's motivation (apart from getting back to his life), is because of that girl.

If you look at the construction of a movie like that, when would these characters have the time and/or motivation to talk about something other than Marty (or the little cousin)? And who cares?

The test is still stupid.

EDIT: Is the test a distraction? Maybe, but someone (male) at a party last weekend was pushing it in people's faces like it's the law or something, until I shut his ass down.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by starman 

But that's not what the comic/test says, so....

EDIT: Example - S vs. B passes. Why? Because Lois never talks to Diana. Therefore, the movie passes despite weak female roles.

Originally Posted by starman 

They give Ghostbusters a pass despite the women talking about men several times. How does that happen when Wiig is ALL. OVER. Hemsworth? And they talk about him and several other men multiple times?

Hahahaha you think the test means that women can't talk about men. It's hilarious seeing you so up in arms about this when you don't even understand how it works.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I sure wish our entertainments were an intrinsic part of our culture, they're so divergent.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Hahahaha you think the test means that women can't talk about men. It's hilarious seeing you so up in arms about this when you don't even understand how it works.

Have you even looked at some of the comments on the web site? The people running it can't even agree.

[andi*pandi]

<gasp> no one agrees on the internet? say it ain't so!

[ort888]

Originally Posted by starman 

Still stupid. Back to the Future fails. Why? Because Jennifer only talks to men. However, the whole motivation of Marty to get back is because of Jennifer! So in this case, the male lead's motivation (apart from getting back to his life), is because of that girl.

If you look at the construction of a movie like that, when would these characters have the time and/or motivation to talk about something other than Marty (or the little cousin)? And who cares?

The test is still stupid.

EDIT: Is the test a distraction? Maybe, but someone (male) at a party last weekend was pushing it in people's faces like it's the law or something, until I shut his ass down.

That's exactly what I'm talking about though. Jennifer has nothing to do with the movie. She's not his motivation. He wants to go back because A.) he doesn't belong in the 50s and b.) (as he later discovers) he's going to cease existing. What role do women play in Back to the Future? You've got his girlfriend, who has nothing to do with anything at all. You have his mom, who's role is to fall in and out of love wth various men. And then you have a smart male scientist helping a male protagonist help another nerdy man in his struggles with a bad male bully... You have this cast of diverse interesting men, and one woman who does nothing and one woman who's role is to fall in love with men.

And look, I love Back to the Future. It's a great movie. It's just another example of how many movies are constructed around men.

Let's move on to the second movie. They had so little need for Jennifer, that they literally had to knock her out and have her miss the vast majority of the movie. It's almost like the couldn't figure out what to do with her, so they just wrote her out.

You picked a really bad example to try to make a point.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

they're so divergent.

That movie sucked, I don't care who talked to who.

[starman]

If talking about something other than a man is OK, then all you have to do is end the conversation with "Want to go shopping tomorrow? I totally need new shoes".

See what I did there?

[andi*pandi]

Sure, that works. Was that hard?

[starman]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Sure, that works. Was that hard?

You're completely missing the point.

[andi*pandi]

That it's a stereotypical girly fluffy conversation? Sure, I saw what you did. Works for a movie like Clueless. Would not work in Star Trek. Fits the test though.

[starman]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

That it's a stereotypical girly fluffy conversation? Sure, I saw what you did. Works for a movie like Clueless. Would not work in Star Trek. Fits the test though.

Right, but doesn't that negate the point of the test?

[andi*pandi]

The point of the test is that even trivial conversations like that don't happen. In most modern movies, there is only one woman, the love interest, who has little to say and no other women to talk to... or if a rom-com, the female heroine has a sidekick that she unloads her romantic angst on.

In most movies, men talk about tons of things besides romance.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

That movie sucked, I don't care who talked to who.

The first was okay popcorn fare. After that? *shudder*

Originally Posted by ort888 

Ghostbusters very easily passes the Bechtel test.

Tell that to Hemsworth, I hear he had to clean drool off his shirt between takes.

Originally Posted by Laminar 

 

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by starman 

You're completely missing the point.

And yet 40% of movies today don't even give women that tiny amount of dialog.

[subego]

Originally Posted by starman 

Which, therefore, dilutes the test itself.

Compared to what?

[P]

Originally Posted by starman 

You're completely missing the point.

No, I think that you are. The original complaint is that a lot of blockbuster movies are formulaic to the extreme, and one result of this is that there is frequently only one woman who is there to play the love interest - or it is a rom on, which is all about love. The test itself - which, as already said, began as a punchline to illustrate the issue - is just one way to detect that type of movie. It is imperfect, as most such simple tests are. There are many movies that fail it that are far from formulaic, and there are others that pass on a technicality that probably shouldn't. And of course you could cheat the test, as you described. That no studio cares to do that shows how little they care.

To decide whether to see a movie based on that test alone is silly, but most of the reasons we see movies are silly. I will freely admit that I skip anything with certain actors in it because they usually don't make good movies, but that is probably even less accurate than that test. I have been wrong several times - Deadpool being the most recent example, I was laughing out loud at that - but it is a useful filter. If the Bechdel test usually works, it remains a useful filter for people who don't like that type of movie - and they can then pick up whatever it misses (like Gravity) based on reviews.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by P 

No, I think that you are. The original complaint is that a lot of blockbuster movies are formulaic to the extreme, and one result of this is that there is frequently only one woman who is there to play the love interest - or it is a rom on, which is all about love. The test itself - which, as already said, began as a punchline to illustrate the issue - is just one way to detect that type of movie. It is imperfect, as most such simple tests are. There are many movies that fail it that are far from formulaic, and there are others that pass on a technicality that probably shouldn't. And of course you could cheat the test, as you described. That no studio cares to do that shows how little they care.

To decide whether to see a movie based on that test alone is silly, but most of the reasons we see movies are silly. I will freely admit that I skip anything with certain actors in it because they usually don't make good movies, but that is probably even less accurate than that test. I have been wrong several times - Deadpool being the most recent example, I was laughing out loud at that - but it is a useful filter. If the Bechdel test usually works, it remains a useful filter for people who don't like that type of movie - and they can then pick up whatever it misses (like Gravity) based on reviews.

Exactly.

The point is that generally speaking, these trends exist, which provides a basis for this test existing in the first place. Whether the test is flawed, there are semantic issues, inconsistencies, language that is not literally accurate, etc. is completely missing the overall point. MacNNers are great at blowing off the overall gist of something because of these sorts of issues, and using these issues to create massive distraction, while losing track of the basic premise.

[Laminar]

Sorry, I just want to make sure that everybody remembers that starman thought that a test existed where a woman talking to a man made the movie fail.

[sek929]

It's easy to be angry about something you know nothing about. Example: Trump supporters

[starman]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Sorry, I just want to make sure that everybody remembers that starman thought that a test existed where a woman talking to a man made the movie fail.

Um, that's not what I said. Show one example of where I said that.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

And yet 40% of movies today don't even give women that tiny amount of dialog.

And yet, you're wrong. Bechdel Test Movie List

Look at 2016. Far more than 40% pass. Even 2015.

So, where did you pull that statistic out of? Oh, I know...

[starman]

Originally Posted by P 

No, I think that you are. The original complaint is that a lot of blockbuster movies are formulaic to the extreme, and one result of this is that there is frequently only one woman who is there to play the love interest - or it is a rom on, which is all about love. The test itself - which, as already said, began as a punchline to illustrate the issue - is just one way to detect that type of movie. It is imperfect, as most such simple tests are. There are many movies that fail it that are far from formulaic, and there are others that pass on a technicality that probably shouldn't. And of course you could cheat the test, as you described. That no studio cares to do that shows how little they care.

To decide whether to see a movie based on that test alone is silly, but most of the reasons we see movies are silly. I will freely admit that I skip anything with certain actors in it because they usually don't make good movies, but that is probably even less accurate than that test. I have been wrong several times - Deadpool being the most recent example, I was laughing out loud at that - but it is a useful filter. If the Bechdel test usually works, it remains a useful filter for people who don't like that type of movie - and they can then pick up whatever it misses (like Gravity) based on reviews.

Explain what the "type of movie" is, please? Back to the Future fails, what "kind of movie" is that?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by starman 

And yet, you're wrong. Bechdel Test Movie List

Look at 2016. Far more than 40% pass. Even 2015.

So, where did you pull that statistic out of? Oh, I know...

You're on a roll here!

If 40% of movies don't give women dialog that constitutes a pass, that means 40% fail. So 60% pass. Which is roughly what it was 2014-2016.

These rampages aren't working out well for you.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

You're on a roll here!

If 40% of movies don't give women dialog that constitutes a pass, that means 40% fail. So 60% pass. Which is roughly what it was 2014-2016.

These rampages aren't working out well for you.

Are you drunk? I said "far more than 40%". Why are you stuck on 40%?

I'm also waiting for where you think I said something about "talking TO a man" as you wrote above.

[Laminar]

You're reaching CTP levels of deflection here.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

You're reaching CTP levels of deflection here.

I'm sorry, you made two accusations. You can easily scroll up and either quote them or admit you have low reading comprehension skills. Pick one.

[reader50]

It's running 57.9% passed among all movies rated. Above 60% for movies in the last few years. 2016 is showing almost 2/3 passing.

Bechdel stats and graphs

[starman]

Originally Posted by reader50 

It's running 57.9% passed among all movies rated. Above 60% for movies in the last few years. 2016 is showing almost 2/3 passing.

Bechdel stats and graphs

Yup. Higher than Laminar's mysterious "40%".

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by starman 

Yup. Higher than Laminar's mysterious "40%".

Yikes. 40% fail = 60% pass. Keep it up.

[starman]

I'm still waiting for you to quote me where I said "talk to".

[Laminar]

No way. I've learned that the best thing to do when you're wrong and being cornered is to deflect and insult and pretend not to care. So...YOU'RE DUMB AND STUFF. I DON'T HAVE TIME TO WASTE ON DUMB PEOPLE LIKE YOU, I'M MUCH TOO BUSY AND IMPORTANT AND SMART.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

You're reaching CTP levels of deflection here.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

No way. I've learned that the best thing to do when you're wrong and being cornered is to deflect and insult and pretend no to car. So...YOU'RE DUMB AND STUFF. I DON'T HAVE TIME TO WASTE ON DUMB PEOPLE LIKE YOU, I'M MUCH TOO BUSY AND IMPORTANT AND SMART.

You no car? O reely?

 

[starman]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

No way. I've learned that the best thing to do when you're wrong and being cornered is to deflect and insult and pretend no to car. So...YOU'RE DUMB AND STUFF. I DON'T HAVE TIME TO WASTE ON DUMB PEOPLE LIKE YOU, I'M MUCH TOO BUSY AND IMPORTANT AND SMART.

Mmhhmm. Thought so. Thanks for admitting you're wrong.

[Laminar]

Yeah, I totally misread what you said and it was a dick move for me to keep harping on it.

[P]

Originally Posted by starman 

Explain what the "type of movie" is, please? Back to the Future fails, what "kind of movie" is that?

An action-comedy based on a hero's journey.