So, Tintin... (No real spoilers in this review)
You know the saying that once you've seen something, you can't ever unsee it? Well, I've seen the lack of women in adventure movies, and I can't unsee it.
Tintin was fun, once I got past the slightly uncanny valley animation. I still think a slightly more cartoony style would've been better, since, even once I stopped being a little off put by it, I spent half the movie trying to figure out why they'd bothered to animate it in the first place. Then we got some more cartoony bits and it all made sense. You really couldn't do a number of the action sequences in a non-animated movie. And the ones you could've would've been hideously expensive.
But there were no women in this movie! Okay, there were two, and they were named, but one was Tintin's landlady, and on screen for a minute at most and the other was an opera singer who seemed half-way a joke and she was only on screen for a few minutes herself. That's it. That's the sum total of women in the movie. Oh, sure there were women in the background shots, but that just means that women are landscape. I am not amused.
I know the movie's based on old comic books. But is that really an excuse to make a movie that has, really, no female characters? Is anything an excuse to make a movie that has no female characters? I am so bloody sick of adventure being for men and boys and only men and boys. It's the twenty-first century for godsakes! Can we please have adventuring women? Is that really too much to ask?
And to think I went to see Tintin because I'd heard spoilers for Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows (which I used to want to see) that told me they burned about half of their good will from the first movie in the first twenty minutes. -_- *kicks Hollywood*
Oh crap, and everyone was white, too. Except for another half-way joke character. *kicks Hollywood again*
This entry was originally posted at http://smurasaki.dreamwidth.org/107691.html.
Tintin was fun, once I got past the slightly uncanny valley animation. I still think a slightly more cartoony style would've been better, since, even once I stopped being a little off put by it, I spent half the movie trying to figure out why they'd bothered to animate it in the first place. Then we got some more cartoony bits and it all made sense. You really couldn't do a number of the action sequences in a non-animated movie. And the ones you could've would've been hideously expensive.
But there were no women in this movie! Okay, there were two, and they were named, but one was Tintin's landlady, and on screen for a minute at most and the other was an opera singer who seemed half-way a joke and she was only on screen for a few minutes herself. That's it. That's the sum total of women in the movie. Oh, sure there were women in the background shots, but that just means that women are landscape. I am not amused.
I know the movie's based on old comic books. But is that really an excuse to make a movie that has, really, no female characters? Is anything an excuse to make a movie that has no female characters? I am so bloody sick of adventure being for men and boys and only men and boys. It's the twenty-first century for godsakes! Can we please have adventuring women? Is that really too much to ask?
And to think I went to see Tintin because I'd heard spoilers for Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows (which I used to want to see) that told me they burned about half of their good will from the first movie in the first twenty minutes. -_- *kicks Hollywood*
Oh crap, and everyone was white, too. Except for another half-way joke character. *kicks Hollywood again*
This entry was originally posted at http://smurasaki.dreamwidth.org/107691.html.