MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Weekend Estimates by Klady

wkndesr120708.jpg

Be Sociable, Share!

90 Responses to “Weekend Estimates by Klady”

  1. IOIOIOI says:

    Say it with me now: “TWIIIIIIIIIIILIGHHHHHHTTTT!!!” It’s like Buffy, but without the female empowerment! HOOYEAH!

  2. brack says:

    So when did Buffy’s superpowers = female empowerment?

  3. sloanish says:

    Don’t let Joss read you questioning whether he has empowered. The hissyfit of hissyfits will follow. That said, Buffy is the hero not the damsel. And it’s that simple and obvious.

  4. So that one week exclusive Oscar-qualifying run for Hunger really died, didn’t it?

  5. jbf81 says:

    BTW Hardwicke kicked off Twiiight franchise, she just got fired. I think is a good thing because I didnt like the direction of the film, but I do feel bad for her.

  6. David Poland says:

    She was dumped a while back… old news… as usual, awaiting the studio admission of it.
    She’ll be fine.

  7. David Poland says:

    Hunger’s qualified at the NuArt here wasn’t gangbusters… but not well supported either. That said, not sure what’s coming to make things any better for a truly special film.

  8. jackfly11 says:

    Miri…Miri…

  9. Hallick says:

    Congratulations to “Twilight” for finally passing the benchmark LexG called for its opening weekend. Bra-vo. So who’s on the shortlist of directors to take Hardwicke’s place now?
    Zack…and Miri. Not Mira. Not as in “Sorvino”. Miri. With an i! Yeah – A WHOLE ANOTHER I! Who’s the f#ckwit (or I guess I should spell it “f#ckwat”) that STILL CAN NOT, NOR WILL EVER, SPELL THIS MOVIE TITLE CORRECTLY?!
    On a related note, it’s “Slumdog Millionaire” not “Slumdog Millionaires”. Two avoidable spelling errors, and I’m supposed to trust that this source is still good with NUMBERS? Okie dokie!

  10. IOIOIOI says:

    Brack: never watched an episode of Buffy did you?

  11. brack says:

    No, I’ve watched all the episodes, even the horrible last season. I just don’t see how a character having superpowers represents female empowerment. That’s like saying Superman represents male empowerment.

  12. For me, Buffy was often about general human empowerment, the ability for Buffy and all of her friends to overcome the various crap life through at them (supernatural or otherwise). But the series finale was as ‘female empowerment’ as it gets.
    While it may be justified, I still think its a crappy move for Summit to publicly report that Hardwicke was being fired in the middle of an international press tour. I would hope that it was only leaked because it was spilling from other sources and/or they didn’t want Hardwicke to drop the bombshell herself in a junket?
    As for who replaces her, I’d presume it would be almost suicidal to replace her with a male director, all things considered (so I guess Paul Verhoeven is out). My vote goes for Lexi Alexander, purely so I can hear a gravel-voiced trailer guy intone ‘from the director of Green Street Hooligans and The Punisher: War Zone comes… New Moon.’
    But then I’ve always enjoyed the potential for awkward plugs (‘from Warner Bros, the studio that brought you Natural Born Killers and Casablanca comes… Speed Racer!’).

  13. Hallick says:

    Buffy as a concept, in her creator’s mind, was about empowering the stock female character in horror movies who was enlessly fleeing and screaming her lung out in terror. Joss Whedon wanted to turn that on its head and give the genre a character who should make the monsters go running and screaming.
    But I think if you look at the show as a whole, it’s about the responsiblities of empowerment, and the tolls it takes on the heros and heroines who were given that power. If the show were only about Buffy’s “empowerment as a woman”, it wouldn’t have been all that much deeper than a “Girls Kick Ass” bumper sticker.
    On a side note, I gotta disagree about the last season, which I think was the best of the series. I watched in all on DVDs in a couple of days. Season six though – oy vey! – took me seven months.

  14. IOIOIOI says:

    Hallick: thanks for bring it.
    Brack: it has nothing to do with the superpowers. If you think it has to do with the superpowers. You missed the fucking point.

  15. brack says:

    IO, and others, I understand what Joss was trying to say, but I think it’s ironic, considering he had to make Buffy super strong in order to do that. I find it funny that no one finds that funny.

  16. IOIOIOI says:

    It was not about Buffy’s super strength. She was almost completely vulnerable in every emotional aspect, and that’s what counts. It’s not funny. If you are laughing while making a douchy comment. Seriously; losing her virginity, and Angel turns into a fucking monster. Put that in your stove pipe hat.

  17. I like season six more than most people, but then I watched it via FX and downloads rather quickly, so I’m guessing the soap opera nature was more of a drag over a 9-month period (although since the whole season was about growing up, I hated that Xander ended up not getting married). As for season 7, I thought the first third was fantastic, the middle third plodding and somewhat without direction, and the final five or so episodes were every bit as good as they needed to be.

  18. brack says:

    “She was almost completely vulnerable in every emotional aspect, and that’s what counts.”
    How is that empowering? Sounds like the typical, unempowered woman to me.

  19. IOIOIOI says:

    It’s empowering because SHE FOUGHT BACK. She’s a fighter, and it has nothing to do with her fighting ability. Again; do you really need this explained to you in anymore detail? It was never about the power, but always about the girl with the power. Seriously… some of you… should never discuss TV. It’s disconcerting. Stick to the movies.

  20. brack says:

    That’s great and all, but that has nothing to do with being a woman.

  21. IOIOIOI says:

    YES IT DOES! Jesus H Christ and his brother Mitch Richmond! Everyone who watched all seven seasons of Buffy and read the comic gets this empowerment, but you. Congratulations! You suck at interpreting a TV show. Again… stick to the movies!

  22. brack says:

    Buffy is female, yes, but so what? I don’t see how Buffy is more empowered than Bella if the criteria is being emotionally vulnerable. There’s plenty of that in the Twilight series.

  23. brack says:

    But I know you’ll come back to this “is too” retort, so I’ll let you have it.

  24. Buffy isn’t “super strong”. She doesn’t have superpowers, nor was she sent here from an alien planet or bitten by a radioactive bug. She was dealt a hand in life – to be a slayer – and while initially choosing to fight against it, she embraced it. She worked to become somebody who could take charge and be a leader to others. It was empowering – not just so women, but “social outcasts” as seen through the eyes of her scooby gang – because she was a girl fighting against all the stereotypes the world put onto her and became somebody who helped save the world. She was a rock for her family and friends, but was also human. She was vulnerable and scared and confused, but through it all she remained a strong and resourceful woman.
    Again, she never had superpowers.

  25. IOIOIOI says:

    Buffy doesnt need the vampire to carry her ass. She carries her own weight, she fights her own fight, and does not need a MAN to get her out of town. Again; she’s an embodiment of a woman who can take care of herself, and that’s empowerment.
    It’s not like I enjoy being snippy Brack. I simply do not get how you do not get what Camel just posted. It was never about the superpowers. It was always about the girl who saved the world… a lot. Except that one time when Xander did it in excellent fashion.

  26. doug r says:

    I believe Robot Chicken had the definitive last episode, I just can’t seem to find it right now.

  27. jeffmcm says:

    I’m pretty sure she did have some low-ley superpowers – she had faster reflexes and slightly-greater-than-normal strength, right? But that’s not the point, because the ‘slayer’ aspect was always just a metaphor for the larger picture.
    “I just don’t see how a character having superpowers represents female empowerment. That’s like saying Superman represents male empowerment.”
    And that fits nicely, because Superman _does_ respresent male empowerment, in a fantasy-identification figure.

  28. LexG says:

    DAWN OWNS.

  29. leahnz says:

    well said, kam, and i’m not even a buffy fan (much more a ‘firefly’ chick)

  30. Jeff, as far as I can remember (I haven’t watched season one in a few years) she had an inbuilt strength that came with being a born slayer, but she had to learn to be as fast and resourceful as she became. Note in the final season how all the slayers come out of the woodwork and they must be taught how to fight. That’s why Buffy had Giles, to teach her the means to be the best slayer she could be and why towards the end of the series he left because he’s taught her everything she needed. Throughout the first seasons especially there are many episodes where she is learning how to become a stronger slayer and how to tune her senses better. Consider it more fantasy license than outright superpowers.

  31. brack says:

    IO, I get what Camel posted, and others have. You’ve made it a point about the FEMALE aspect, which there isn’t.
    Buffy was a cheerleader before she was “the chosen one.” So yeah…

  32. brack says:

    “And that fits nicely, because Superman _does_ respresent male empowerment, in a fantasy-identification figure.”
    Actually, Superman represents solitude and loneliness.

  33. storymark says:

    Kam – While your analysis is great for the most part, yeah, the Slayers, Buffy and all the others, did have powers. Mainly strength, but agility and reflexes, as well. yes, Buffy spent time training, but that was to hone those powers. And with the Army of Slayers in the final season, they made a point of showing several of them having to suddenly deal with their newly-acquired super-strength.
    And Brack… yeah, just doesn’t get it…..

  34. yancyskancy says:

    Buffy being female is a factor in the empowerment scenario because, you know, she’s female. An average high school girl becomes a vampire slayer and routinely saves the world. If she were a boy, it would be about male empowerment. Of course there’s nothing to prevent either gender from identifying with Buffy or fantasizing about having her power, but girls are Whedon’s primary target.
    As for Superman, solitude and loneliness are definitely part of his appeal to adolescent males (and beyond), but it wouldn’t mean much without the superpowers. Humanizing him in that way gives the reader/viewer a chance to identify with him, so it resonates deeper than a simple fantasy projection of power.

  35. brack says:

    storymark, I completely get what people are saying, I just don’t completely agree. Are you going to go into every entry and comment on how I don’t get it? Wow, what a way to contribute. And you call me being a douche. *roll eyes*
    So for Superman it’s about the powers, but Buffy it isn’t? I don’t get how you guys can pick and chose from similar scenarios.
    This is funny, because Angel is the male equivalent of Buffy, and no one talks about the fact that he’s a male, but since Buffy is female, that’s the big focus. What the fuck ever.
    I’d say something like some of the characters on Sex and the City are more empowered than Buffy. Given the choice, Buffy would be with Angel if Angel was like Edward from Twilight. Buffy never wanted to be the chosen one, and sees it as a burden. She just wanted a normal life, but no, she’s stuck with the kid that she never wanted.

  36. jeffmcm says:

    Brack, you really seem to have some kind of blinders going on here. The whole point of Buffy being a female empowerment figure and Superman or Angel not being remarked upon is that _Buffy is female_. If you haven’t noticed, women have typically not been playing on an even field for the last few millennia of human history, so that when a popular media character comes along who’s a female leader with strength and intelligence who doesn’t have to sacrifice femininity, designed primarily for a young female audience, that’s worth noticing.
    It doesn’t sound like there’s any argument that would possibly satisfy you.

  37. brack says:

    ^^^ Why, because I simply don’t agree with yours and other’s righteousness? I’m not the one who just pretends like Joss Whedon didn’t give Buffy powers, like every else seems to be doing because it then fits into the “female empowerment” message. You can’t just pick and choose what’s there on the screen.
    For a frame of reference on my part, I’d say another Joss Whedon show, Firefly, exemplifies this concept much, much better.

  38. jeffmcm says:

    “Why, because I simply don’t agree with yours and other’s righteousness?”
    No, because you keep shifting the argument into something about personality conflicts and ignoring the actual substantive arguments that have been made.
    Yes, Whedon did give Buffy what I would call obligatory super powers – he kind of had to, for the sake of the genre he was working in. But they really aren’t really at the center of the Buffy character. She’s a teenage girl/young adult who deals with exagerrated problems without constantly needing to rely on a male/authority figure and who constantly defies stereotypes. She’s strong, independent, and tough while still remaining feminine and emotional.
    At this point I’m just repeating myself because it all seems pretty straightforward to me.

  39. Triple Option says:

    While wishing to remain Canada on this issue, I do think I see what Brack is trying to say. Buffy by default might be a female empowerment character because she physically fights and defeats bad guys but what other traits could Buffy possess that would fit align herself with the empowering woman archetype? Does she overcome impossible odds to defeat an impossible foe ala Ripley in Alien(s)? Does she rise up out of a bad situation to gain liberty or independence such as Norma Rae? Does she break out of tradition defined roles to become a model for what perseverance, ingenuity or brawn can achieve, much like Uma Thurman’s character in Kill Bill Vol 2? Does she elevate the perception of others without compromising herself or even perhaps not losing her identity as a woman, sorta like Tina Turner/What’s Love Got to Do With It?
    I think the first step would be to define what makes a female empowering character. Not sure if it’s simply a matter of muscles and violence but that’s up to the interpreter.

  40. yancyskancy says:

    But aren’t Buffy’s physical powers a metaphor for her empowerment? It’s a show about a vampire slayer, and she needs some sort of superior abilities to be a viable one. How does this undercut the female empowerment theme?
    At any rate, Buffy’s insecurities and emotional vulnerability humanizes her without negating her empowerment. I’m unclear what brack considers to be an empowered female – one with no human vulnerabilities?
    brack: “So for Superman it’s about the powers, but Buffy it isn’t? I don’t get how you guys can pick and chose from similar scenarios.” Assuming that’s directed at my comment, I don’t see any contradiction in my comparison of the two heroes. Both have powers and both have humanizing vulnerabilities that make them more complex than some simple Neitzschean ideal. It’s about the powers AND the way it effects those who have them. And sure, the female aspect is an issue mostly because of its comparative scarcity, as jeff pointed out. In a different culture, maybe Buffy would be one of many shows about a strong, kickass young person who just happened to be a young woman. In ours, however, at least part of its agenda is to present an empowered female.

  41. LexG says:

    If we’re being honest, I’m not often a huge fan of “empowered female” narratives; That usually means it’s some chick jumping around doing unconvincing man-style action that just seems like high camp, with some added, possibly disingenuous built-in tables-turned pseudo-justification for why she also just happens to look super-hot doing it.
    The writers and directors of such shows– Whedon, Abrams, et al, usually seem like the filmmaking equivalent of the male drummer in the pretentious chick band: Putting on a good game and coming off as an enlightened sophomore douche taking a few Women’s Studies classes… but mostly because that way he gets to surround himself with hot squack.
    It’s a good game, actually.
    Anyway, I usually prefer women to be not so much empowered, but more just hot, slutty, and kinda dumb.
    And preferrably not saying a lot. That works.

  42. jeffmcm says:

    “…taking a few Women’s Studies classes… but mostly because that way he gets to surround himself with hot squack.”
    Obviously you’ve never been in a Women’s Studies class. POW!
    Also, I will give you a thousand dollars to never use the word ‘squack’ again. It and you are both hideous.

  43. Hallick says:

    Buffy had powers, but they were rarely a match for the powers of the villains in most of the story arcs. Intense strength and quick healing is a great asset to have, but what empowered Buffy as a person was her stepping up to accept some heavy responsiblities; her willingness to sacrifice herself to defend others (and also sacrifice people she loved to do the same, e.g., her killing of Angel); and most of all, her growth over the years into being a real leader as the series progressed. Being a super strong Slayer didn’t guarantee anything easy for her character.
    “This is funny, because Angel is the male equivalent of Buffy, and no one talks about the fact that he’s a male, but since Buffy is female, that’s the big focus.”
    If you don’t get why that is, then you probably don’t get why people made such a big fuss about Barack Obama getting elected president. A male “superhero” is the overwhelming norm. Buffy, as a character, was most definitely not. And if you’ve watched the show as you’ve said you have, you already know that half of Buffy’s empowerment over seven season had nothing to do with fighting demons and vampires and witches. She also overcame a neglectful absentee father; having to murder the person she loved most; the disease and sudden death of her mother; being involuntarily thrust into a motherhood role of her own with Dawn; being brought back from the afterlife to a world that could never match what she found in Heaven; pulling herself out of a self-loathing relationship with Spike; and on and on. Super powers didn’t have a thing to do with those achievements.
    God, I’m proud to be a BVS geek…

  44. LexG says:

    I’ll go one step further and say most films where the women talk a lot, it’s usually boring camp there too.
    Just look shiny and let Bay or Besson light you nice, hotness.

  45. Hallick says:

    LexG – eagerly awaiting “Maxim Magazine:The Movie”.

  46. brack says:

    Yeah, there was never a strong, female character on television before Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Hell, there was never a female superhero in comics before Buffy. LMFAO. Get real. Comparing her to Barack Obama is absolutely laughable.

  47. jeffmcm says:

    Nobody said anything about Buffy being the first/only strong female character on TV/in comics. That’s a non sequitur.

  48. brack says:

    Actually, if you read Hallick’s post, you’d notice you’re wrong there. For me, Buffy wasn’t anything revolutionary. Perhaps I’ve read stories like Buffy’s for years, and don’t think anything of it. Gee, what a concept Jeff.

  49. jeffmcm says:

    No, Hallick’s post says nothing of the sort. He says “A male ‘superhero’ is the overwhelming norm. Buffy, as a character, was most definitely not.”

  50. LexG says:

    Brack, run for the hills. Lookin’ like a long night in McDoucheland.

  51. brack says:

    I disagree. Aside from her superpowers, which we’re supposed to forget she has in this discussion, she is a character that has gone through a lot of things that have been covered plenty on television, but I guess since those shows weren’t action/horror oriented, no one was paying attention. Whatever, that’s your prerogative.

  52. brack says:

    Lex, that’s some good advice.

  53. jeffmcm says:

    It’s true, I will do this all night.
    Brack, would you explain why you keep making Buffy’s superpowers an issue? She has them, fine, agreed, but what point are you trying to make regarding them?
    And yes indeed, female characters have dealt with all sorts of issues on TV before, granted. But again, what’s your point? That since Wonder Woman got in fights in the 1970s that everything since has been redundant and irrelevant?
    What is your cutoff threshold for a character being legitimately a ‘female empowerment figure’ in your estimation?

  54. LexG says:

    DAWN STILL OWNS.

  55. brack says:

    “What is your cutoff threshold for a character being legitimately a ‘female empowerment figure’ in your estimation?”
    A figure that does what she wants to do with her life. Buffy is chained to her life. Some empowerment. She deals with it extraordinarily well, and it’s fun to watch, but I’m not sitting there thinking “gosh, what an amazing, empowered being.” I’m thinking “damn, her life sucks, but at least she has some great friends.”

  56. yancyskancy says:

    Whether Buffy was the first or ten-thousandth character to go through the things she went through is irrelevant. There is an element of female empowerment to the narrative. This just seems self-evident to me. You don’t have to relate to it or care about it to enjoy the show, but it’s there.
    And of course Buffy WASN’T the Obama of Grrrrl power, but such characters have always been a minority presence in the culture.

  57. brack says:

    “Brack, would you explain why you keep making Buffy’s superpowers an issue? She has them, fine, agreed, but what point are you trying to make regarding them?”
    Because without them, you had no show.

  58. yancyskancy says:

    Finally, some clarity instead of condescension. And I basically agree with your point. But I still that think girls who watched the show got the empowerment message — even if it wasn’t the ONLY message.

  59. jeffmcm says:

    Brack, while I’m happy to agree that Whedon’s vision of Buffy-as-empowering isn’t comprehensive or perfect, would you be willing to accept that your definition isn’t shared by everybody?

  60. yancyskancy says:

    urgh – “think that,” not “that think.”

  61. leahnz says:

    let me guess: brack disagrees
    then jeff disagrees
    then lex luthor retorts
    and yancy tries mop up the mess
    then brack disagrees…
    and round and round we go

  62. jeffmcm says:

    “Because without them, you had no show.”
    Uh, yeah…so?

  63. jeffmcm says:

    Leah, I agree that we’re all ridiculous.

  64. Hallick says:

    “Actually, if you read Hallick’s post, you’d notice you’re wrong there.”
    Actually, if you’d written Hallick’s post, like I did, you’d notice he isn’t. I was comparing her signifigance in fiction to Obama’s signifigance in politics, but not equating it. And that was only in response to your wondering why people don’t make the same big deal about male characters with superpowers such as Angel (everything is a given and taken for granted when it’s a dude in that case, or a white guy in the White House).
    Which is all pretty far afield from your assertion that Buffy doesn’t represent female empowerment. Then again, your actual question was, “so when did Buffy’s superpowers = female empowerment?”. Which is easily answered with, “they don’t”. Her powers didn’t make her great any more than a sword and some chain mail would’ve made any old village boy a legendary knight.

  65. brack says:

    “Brack, while I’m happy to agree that Whedon’s vision of Buffy-as-empowering isn’t comprehensive or perfect, would you be willing to accept that your definition isn’t shared by everybody?”
    No shit, Sherlock. If you thought I was trying to change anyone’s mind, well, you’re not really worth talking to, ever.

  66. LexG says:

    So, is this still the right thread to ask someone to break those “Frost/Nixon” numbers down for me; I’m assuming that tally is good-but-not-shockingly good?
    Doing well in limited is increasingly never a really good indicator, because you could open a film that’s a still 90-minute shot of a wicker chair in three prominent L.A. theaters in mid-December, and enough guild members and fringe-dwellars would still crowd the Arclight, Landmark and Grove so as not to be left out of the hype.

  67. jeffmcm says:

    Then why did we spend all our time on this? What an odd thing to say.

  68. jeffmcm says:

    That was to Brack, not Lex.
    So let me just break this down –
    Brack asks a question;
    A bunch of people respond to it;
    Brack, knowing that he’s not going to change anybody’s mind, continues to insist that everybody else is wrong.
    Whuh?

  69. brack says:

    “Which is all pretty far afield from your assertion that Buffy doesn’t represent female empowerment. Then again, your actual question was, “so when did Buffy’s superpowers = female empowerment?”. Which is easily answered with, “they don’t”. Her powers didn’t make her great any more than a sword and some chain mail would’ve made any old village boy a legendary knight.”
    Without her powers, there was no show. I just told Jeff that. It really is that simple. Hence my disagreement with the whole female empowerment discussion. You can disagree all you want, but this isn’t a “I’m right and you’re wrong” thing, no matter how much anyone here wants to make it so.

  70. LexG says:

    Buffy has the power to give me a boner.

  71. jeffmcm says:

    So what is your argument re: “Without her powers, there was no show”?
    Without a car, there’s no Knight Rider. Without space travel, there’s no Star Trek. Without the uncanny ability to solve crimes, there’s no Sherlock Holmes.
    ???

  72. brack says:

    “That was to Brack, not Lex.
    So let me just break this down –
    Brack asks a question;
    A bunch of people respond to it;
    Brack, knowing that he’s not going to change anybody’s mind, continues to insist that everybody else is wrong.
    Whuh?”
    Yeah, I’ll come right out and say you’re absolutely wrong Jeff. I gave my opinion, that is all. If you want to pretend like I’m doing what you say I’m doing, go ahead, I don’t give a fuck. You obviously have nothing better to do that to paint it as so.

  73. brack says:

    “So what is your argument re: “Without her powers, there was no show”?
    Without a car, there’s no Knight Rider. Without space travel, there’s no Star Trek. Without the uncanny ability to solve crimes, there’s no Sherlock Holmes.
    ???”
    None of those things have to do with female empowerment. Buffy’s powers did. She was the chosen one. All the bad guys were drawn to her because of this. If you’re going to say Buffy is the example of female empowerment, so was Beverly Hills 90210, Melrose Place, daytime soap opera, etc., etc. It really is a common theme.

  74. jeffmcm says:

    Brack, there’s a definite communication problem here. Usually someone ‘simply giving their opinion’ doesn’t turn into a day-long running argument where one person refuses to admit that the other side’s argument has any validity whatsoever.

  75. brack says:

    “Brack, there’s a definite communication problem here. Usually someone ‘simply giving their opinion’ doesn’t turn into a day-long running argument where one person refuses to admit that the other side’s argument has any validity whatsoever.”
    Why do I have to admit anything? I think it’s a given that everyone’s entitled to their opinion. If I have to say “Well, I disagree completely, but you’re entitled to that opinion,” that seems a bit unfair, considering no one else is doing this at all. But again, I gave my piece, and it’s post after post about how I’m wrong. So yeah, your theory is bullshit.

  76. jeffmcm says:

    There are pretty obvious differences between the likes of Melrose Place and 90210 and Buffy. Besides the obvious and significant genre differences, there weren’t a lot of karate battles against monsters on 90210 (as far as I know).

  77. jeffmcm says:

    “If I have to say “Well, I disagree completely, but you’re entitled to that opinion,” that seems a bit unfair, considering no one else is doing this at all.”
    It’s not a matter of ‘fairness’ but of simple conversational consideration and politeness, plus the fact that for the vast bulk of the conversation your definition of ’empowered’ was a secret known only to yourself, if we had all known that going in we could have moved on a lot faster. Now that I know what it is, I can respect that, using that definition, you have a point. (I don’t agree with that definition, but that’s a separate discussion).

  78. brack says:

    “There are pretty obvious differences between the likes of Melrose Place and 90210 and Buffy. Besides the obvious and significant genre differences, there weren’t a lot of karate battles against monsters on 90210 (as far as I know).”
    So now the female empowerment aspect has to do with her ability to fight? See, that’s what I’m talking about. She had to be given powers, powers that no female in real life has. This is getting tedious Jeff.

  79. brack says:

    “It’s not a matter of ‘fairness’ but of simple conversational consideration and politeness, plus the fact that for the vast bulk of the conversation your definition of ’empowered’ was a secret known only to yourself, if we had all known that going in we could have moved on a lot faster. Now that I know what it is, I can respect that, using that definition, you have a point. (I don’t agree with that definition, but that’s a separate discussion).”
    If you actually agreed with anything I’d say, I’d probably have to disagree so the universe doesn’t come to an end.

  80. jeffmcm says:

    Brack, I’m really quite a reasonable person and I’m sorry this has gotten so absurd.

  81. brack says:

    Me too. *hugs*

  82. jeffmcm says:

    Uh, okay then.

  83. brack says:

    LOL.

  84. IOIOIOI says:

    You know what I am? I’M A BRICK FUCKING WALL OF VENGEANCE AND FROSTY GOODNESS! You are fucking wrong, Brack. You are so fucking wrong, that your wrongness has been recorded in the ANNUALS OF WRONGESS AND DOUCHEBAGGERY FOUND ON THE INTERNET 2008 edition (available in brown or black leather covers for an additional 15.99). You are so fucking wrong. Homeland Security is convinced your backwards ass attitude about Buffy is a covert plot from our “ENEMIES” to insult our best TV in the last 25 years.
    You are so fucking wrong. Joss Whedon is personally writing a response for you at Whedonesque. He starts with; “Dear inaccurate internet asshole. I am writing you to confirm you are wrong, and an asshole.”
    You are so fucking wrong. You mentally wiped Lex’ distorted fat fucking brain. Which led to him masturbating for 5 hours last night to pictures of Sarah Josepha Hale, Betty Friedan, and Gloria Steinem.
    You are so fucking wrong, that if you were to ever be right. The people of the Paco Paco tribe in Southwesten New Guinea, would give up all hope, and finally commit to moving to Tempe, Arizona.
    You are so fucking wrong that the only way to stop your fucking backwards ass is with UN sanctions. Unfortunately for you; Bush is still president. This means he would state that there would need to UN weapon examiners sent to your house. You, being a backwards fuck, would refuse such a request.
    This would lead to Cheaney — also known as DOCTOR ZOLA now– to fake intelligence about your backward ass and certain weapons grade munitions you are making in your backyard.
    Bush would give an empassioned speech to the UN, state he did not want a war, but he really did.
    You would offer to let the examiners in to your house. Bush would refuse to let them go in, and he would declare war against you.
    Eventually you will hide in a hole under your dog’s house in that backyard. You would be found, put on trial in the most kangaroo of kangaroo courts, and eventually be kicked in the balls.
    Right before you were kicked in the balls. I would walk up, pick up your face to my level, and tell you this; “You stupid arrogant ass. You can watch and read those stories all your wife, but it does not change the fact that BUFFY IS DIFFERENT. She’s not a superhero, dip shit. She’s a slayer. A slayer fights in the shadows. Superman in the light.”
    I would continue; “If you knew a god damn thing about comics in general. You would have never made such a bonehead and backwards comment. Hell, most of the shit you posted, you would have kept to yourself. However, in this case, you are fucking wrong. You are not entitled to this opinion. You are only entitled to thinking you actually GRASPED something, when you were not even close. You failed miserably at understanding a show, you barely watched, and most likely did not pay attention to enough to notice how fucking WRONG YOU FUCKING ARE IN THIS FUCKING THREAD. Steve Zahn. Kick him in the nards.”
    Zahn kicks you in the nards, and we all live happily ever after.

  85. LexG says:

    FAITH FUCKING OWNS.

  86. LexG says:

    That that EIGHT PLACE finish of PUNISHER: WAR ZONE proves for the billionth time that American moviegoers by and large lack the WILL TO GET THEIR ASS FUCKING OWNED.
    GodDAMN did that movie FUCKING OWN, totally violent, awesome, hateful, bankrupt, over the top, and FUCKING AWESOME AND HARDCORE AS FUCK. THE PUNISHER FUCKING OWNS.
    DOMINIC WEST FOR BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR, NO bullshit.
    M A S T E R P I E C E.

  87. IOIOIOI says:

    Word up, Lex. How was it yanking one out to the woman who brought forth Thanksgiving?
    Oh yeah… you guys can hug. I bring a bit of business straight out of John Hughes movie from 1987. We can agree to disagree as long as we agree that I’m right. HIYO!!!!! :D!

  88. LexG says:

    LEXI ALEXANDER: BEST FEMALE DIRECTOR EVER.
    WAR ZONE. KNOW IT. BOW TO IT.

  89. brack says:

    “She’s not a superhero, dip shit. She’s a slayer. A slayer fights in the shadows. Superman in the light.”
    IO, so the only superhero that exists for you is Superman? That’s the only way your argument works. Batman fights in the shadows, is he not considered a superhero anymore, “dipshit”? If you haven’t figured it out yet, your rants are always filled with holes. I would advise you to stop now, but of course you won’t. Oh, and you’re wrong….WRONG, WRONG, WRONG….WRONG, WRONG, WRONG….YOU’RE WRONG, YOU’RE WRONG, YOU’RE WRONG. Dr. Cox is a good friend of mine, and he told me to tell you that.

  90. christian says:

    Buffy nerds are funny.

Leonard Klady's Friday Estimates
Friday Screens % Chg Cume
Title Gross Thtr % Chgn Cume
Venom 33 4250 NEW 33
A Star is Born 15.7 3686 NEW 15.7
Smallfoot 3.5 4131 -46% 31.3
Night School 3.5 3019 -63% 37.9
The House Wirh a Clock in its Walls 1.8 3463 -43% 49.5
A Simple Favor 1 2408 -50% 46.6
The Nun 0.75 2264 -52% 111.5
Hell Fest 0.6 2297 -70% 7.4
Crazy Rich Asians 0.6 1466 -51% 167.6
The Predator 0.25 1643 -77% 49.3
Also Debuting
The Hate U Give 0.17 36
Shine 85,600 609
Exes Baggage 75,900 62
NOTA 71,300 138
96 61,600 62
Andhadhun 55,000 54
Afsar 45,400 33
Project Gutenberg 36,000 17
Love Yatri 22,300 41
Hello, Mrs. Money 22,200 37
Studio 54 5,300 1
Loving Pablo 4,200 15
3-Day Estimates Weekend % Chg Cume
No Good Dead 24.4 (11,230) NEW 24.4
Dolphin Tale 2 16.6 (4,540) NEW 16.6
Guardians of the Galaxy 7.9 (2,550) -23% 305.8
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 4.8 (1,630) -26% 181.1
The Drop 4.4 (5,480) NEW 4.4
Let's Be Cops 4.3 (1,570) -22% 73
If I Stay 4.0 (1,320) -28% 44.9
The November Man 2.8 (1,030) -36% 22.5
The Giver 2.5 (1,120) -26% 41.2
The Hundred-Foot Journey 2.5 (1,270) -21% 49.4