Movie Violence

Is This X-Men: Apocalypse Poster Really Promoting Violence Against Women?

Rose McGowan and Salon think so. I don't.

|

Choke
Screenshot via Twentieth Century Fox

They live among us: people born with genetic mutations that give them awesome power—the power to be constantly offended by things that wouldn't bother a normal, reasonable human. 

Actress Rose McGowan thinks this promotional poster for X-Men: Apocalypse promotes violence against women, and Salon (the real news website, not the parody Twitter account) agrees

"Yes, we all understand that action movies are not reality and that mutants are not real women," writes Salon's Mary Elizabeth Williams. "That said, do you think anybody at Fox gave a moment of thought to the issues of offscreen violence to women when it decided that an image of Jennifer Lawrence's Mystique being choked was a hot idea as the symbol of its new blockbuster? Or as actress Rose McGowan puts it, 'F—k this s__t.'" 

Maybe they didn't think about those issues because this poster doesn't really involve them? 

Here was Rose McGowan

"There is a major problem when the men and women at 20th Century Fox think casual violence against women is the way to market a film. There is no context in the ad, just a woman getting strangled. The fact that no one flagged this is offensive and frankly, stupid. The geniuses behind this, and I use that term lightly, need to to take a long hard look at the mirror and see how they are contributing to society. Imagine if it were a black man being strangled by a white man, or a gay male being strangled by a hetero? The outcry would be enormous. So let's right this wrong. 20th Century Fox, since you can't manage to put any women directors on your slate for the next two years, how about you at least replace your ad?" 

But doesn't this argument only work if the poster is suppose to inspire viewers to take the side of Apocalypse, the man (if you can call him that) doing the choking? Obviously, it's not doing that. It's not saying violence against women is good. It's not supporting or promoting it. Violence is something the villain of the film is doing. Bad guys, like Apocalypse, hurt women. Hurting women is evil. That's it. 

I've not seen this latest X-Men movie, but I've seen the rest of them (even the truly abhorrent X-Men Origins: Wolverine). They depict plenty of violence between men and women, women and women, men and men, humans and non-humans, blue people and other blue people, etc. Female characters aren't relegated to damsel-in-distress status: in fact, some of the most awesomely powerful X-Men characters are women (including some of the villains). Mystique, the character being choked by Apocalypse, is actually responsible for a whole lot of violence herself, and not always in service of the forces of good. She's an outright bad girl in the first X-Men movie, and (SPOILERS!) an accomplice to attempted genocide in the second. 

If the poster had depicted Apocalypse choking, say, Magneto, would we accuse it of advocating violence against men? Against Jews? I don't think so.

Update: Twentieth Century Fox has issued an apology and clarified that the company doesn't condone violence against women. If that was unclear. Here's the statement:

"In our enthusiasm to show the villainy of the character Apocalypse we didn't immediately recognize the upsetting connotation of this image in print form. Once we realized how insensitive it was, we quickly took steps to remove those materials. We apologize for our actions and would never condone violence against women."

NEXT: The National Enquirer Hires Dick Morris

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Is each link getting it’s own article now? I approve. AM and PM links are an abomination.

    1. There’s a special place in hell for people like you.

      1. I know. I helped design it.

        1. I hope it’s next to the place for women who don’t vote for Hillary.

          1. That’s my harem

    2. That’s the last time I take the time out of my day to post a pee in the shower link.

  2. I thought chicks liked that rough stuff now days.

      1. Nice:)

    1. entirely cobalt blue women dont seem to enjoy being choked by giant dark gray men , when such beings come into existence we shall have to ask them if this is universally true .

  3. They are like that in video games too. Complain there are no female characters, then when there are, complain about …..

    really they have no benefit to society other than complaining. Nothing is ever acceptable to these people.

    / shows statistics that Men are more often the victims of violence

    /ducks

    1. Exactly. You can’t win with these fucktards. They should just be ignored.

      1. I would have more respect for Fox if they publicly announce that Rose McGowan should fuck off.

      2. Or choked.

      1. Hm, the outrage economy, not bad.

      2. So if you are outraged by outrage brokers and write articles promoting outrage against outrage brokers, are you, yourself, an outrage broker?

        1. Is “outrage” what you trade, the essence of what you produce and sell, or is it a vehicle, and perhaps a by-product?

          1. An, the, essential vehicle. People ostensibly aren’t buying outrage, they’re buying (“buying” not necessarily meaning spending money on, but even just paying attention to, buying into) the outrageous product. Because it’s outrageous?even if not to them, ostensibly to many people, and that makes it enticing.

            1. The question remains there, does outrage guide attention to matters that are important, is it a proxy? Outrage would be marker of (social) importance, and thus a vehicle to transport information. An attraction to witnessing outrage attracts to socially important information.

              1. In some cases, sure. And I think that’s why even though these specific ‘outrageous’ events (this promo poster) have a lifespan of, like, a week, the underlying theme of the outrage (“violence against women”) underlies many more of these short-lived events of the past and to come. One might identify the recurring themes as socially important (I don’t think they necessarily are?the repetition just makes them seem to be, though of course the repetition gets momentum from some people thinking they’re important matters), but he’s still missing the point. The events themselves do nothing to advance the cause (of doing something about violence against women), and say nothing of how to do something.

                So the specific apparent-outrage event is cynically, manipulatively propped up. More organic outrage would certainly be a marker of social importance. Many people believe “violence against women” to be a matter of huge social comport, to be significantly more commonplace because of some ‘climate’ that facilitates it. I’m not sure what to do with that marker information, but I’m certain that articles denouncing some specific depiction of it, sans context, doesn’t minimize its commonplaceness.

  4. You’re just trolling GILMORE at this point, aren’t you, Robby?

    It’s all right, we have all done it from time to time…

    1. Come on man, its a super-hero movie. this is a non-event.

      i only perk up and take notice when its a question of whether the Cafeteria food @ Oberlin is racist.

  5. Kudos to that progressive level of idiocy. When the villian of the story harms a woman, that is not an endorsement. It’s the exact opposite. More so, it’s best way to mark and make someone the villian, by having him harm women (or children).

    One could add demonstrations of feminist “philosophy”, such as “equality”. Then we’d need much more violence against women, as it is men who are depicting as inflicting and suffering violence, akin to reality.

    1. *villain*

    2. That’s a fine sentiment. But, then don’t expect women or children to be elevated to the status of superheroes. As far as I can tell, the whole superhero/supervillain game is a contact sport.

      1. True. But the inevitability of interaction effects and trade-offs, as well as the necessity of a consistent philosophy (especially in relativism) is not something “they” care for. They want to be the same and different. Comparably, that’s not worthy.

  6. #bluelivesmatter

    1. #blackandbluelivesmatter

    2. Hal Jordan always thought so.

      BTW, choking Magneto would’ve been elder abuse, before the role was recast (Ian McKellen to Michael Fassbinder.)

      I always liked Ms McGowan. She was (is?) purty. Charmed was a guilty pleasure. X-men movies are morally equivalent to her witchy TV show. The comics, ever since the writers stopped treating Jean (Marvel Girl) Grey as just scenery, became, in the 1970s, one of the foremost examples of “strong women” characters. Chris Claremont made a cliche of it. Mystique started out as a villainess, in both the comics and the flicks, any retcons aside. – Kevin R

  7. From Rose McGowan:

    There is no context in the ad, just a woman getting strangled. The fact that no one flagged this is offensive and frankly, stupid.

    No context? It’s a damn movie poster about aliens with superpowers! SJWs are a cancer on society.

    1. The X-Men are NOT aliens! Jesus christ.

      1. I think nightcrawler is.

        1. *Deep sigh*

          Nightcrawler is the son of Mystique, a human mutant, and Azazel, a teleporting demon-like creature from a hell dimension.

          Not an alien.

          1. And Storm I’m pretty sure Storm is an alien.

          2. If they don’t have a green card then they’re an alien.

            -Trumpeteer

            1. Has anyone checked on Professor X’s immigration status? How long does a teacher’s visa last?

              1. Kurt Wagner was from (West) Germany. The All-New, All-Different X-Men were an international crew: Nightcrawler (FRG), Sunfire (Nippon), Wolverine (Canuckistan), Banshee (Oirland), Collosus (CCCP). Thunderbird was an Apache. He probably wanted to check Cyclops’ Green card.

                Storm’s like Obama, sorta: Kenyan Mom, US Dad, born in `Murica (Harlem.)

                Kitty Pryde’s dragon, Lockheed is an alien, though. – Kevin R

    2. There is no context in the ad, just a woman getting strangled.

      No context? The billboard has the title “X-Men Apocalypse” on it, which is quite good context.

      Actress Rose McGowan thinks

      Assumes facts not in evidence.

      1. No context? The billboard has the title “X-Men Apocalypse” on it, which is quite good context.

        ^ Exactly this.

        Does any sentient being on the planet not know at least a little bit about what the X-men are? How could you possibly mistake this for some sort of “let’s get our jollies beating on women” movie? They act as if this is that Hustler cover from the 70s with the dismembered body parts on it. Speaking of which, didn’t The People vs. Larry Flint do a pretty good job of showing why even that was protected speech?

        Actress Rose McGowan thinks

        Assumes facts not in evidence.

        Seriously. She hates violence so much she co-starred in this abomination.

        1. “Does any sentient being on the planet not know at least a little bit about what the X-men are? How could you possibly mistake this for some sort of “let’s get our jollies beating on women” movie?”

          Oh the theory is “man see, man do”. An extension of which is: “feminist imagines things, imagines man seeing these things, man do”.

        2. Is she still really an “actress”? I can’t recall seeing her in a movie in at least a decade.

      2. In Tose McGowan’s defense, she is retarded. So before you bash her, at least take into account that she’s probably barely able to tie her own shows.

        I mean “Jawbreaker”? She was the headliner in “Jawbreaker”, dude.

        1. Yes, but did you see what she looked like in Jawbreaker? *drools*

    3. Plus I have it on good authority that Jennifer Lawrence needs to be viciously choked in order to cum.

  8. #FirstWorldProblems

  9. Superhero movies are violent. That’s kind of what being a superhero or supervillain is about. Supervillains use violence to hurt people. Superheroes use violence to stop them.

    If you want to have women take on the role of superheroes, something feminists have been demanding for years and something I don’t particularly have a problem with, the women superheroes are going to be subject to violence.

    Don’t tell me how “fierce” you are or blather to me about “Grrl Power” and expect to live in a world where even your enemies are so nurturing as to worry if you break a nail.

    1. even your enemies are so nurturing as to worry if you break a nail

      Nicely put.

  10. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

    1. Things People With Deeply Entrenched Penis Envy Say

      1. *Permanently Entrenched Non-Vagina Invidiousness Syndrome.

        1. whoops, decaps ‘vagina’, not part of the acronym. and yes, thesaurus.

  11. Just by the way, another funny thing, the “Bechdel test”. It apparently escapes feminists, that women do talk much more about relationships than men. Romance novels, romance movies, women’s magazines (and the consumers of these three), female friends, and introspection might have given that away.

    Nor is there objectively reason to endorse that planned economy of the sexes.

    1. I can’t take the test seriously after someone pointed out lesbian porn passes it with flying colors.

      1. You don’t take lesbian porn seriously.

        1. I take my lesbian porn very seriously.

    2. The “talking about a male character” clause of the Bechdel test is what renders it bullshit. If men can objectify women through their language, the reverse is the same. The “object” of conversation is acted upon by the speakers. They establish the narrative and interpretation of that object through their discourse. Women discussing men puts them in a position of power over them.

      In real life, this happens all the time. First of all, women are the gateways to sexuality, so they’re constantly evaluating men for viability. Female survival has been biologically tied to the viability of the males that will contribute to her children’s genes and support them during pregnancy, child-rearing, and later life when her sexual appeal is diminished. Hence, women take a much keener interest in relationships and sexuality in real life, and hence, in their chosen entertainment.

      Talking about men doesn’t make a woman subservient to the man she’s talking about. Just ask any guy who’s been on the wrong end of a woman’s whisper campaign or the victim of a false rape allegation. As the sex that’s less able to use physical force to defend themselves, women more often use words as a weapon, which necessarily will involve talking about the men they’re attacking.

  12. The only problem is that he’s covering some prime underboob. Terrible artwork.

  13. It’s promoting outrage so that pop culture critics will write and argue about it, providing free advertising of the best sort (Streisand effect? Want to deter people? You’ll end up coaxing curious people) and then people like me who feign to know better will also fall into the trap by clicking and commenting on the missing-the-point articles written about it? I’m just a rat who smells cheese.

  14. Well, they *should* have made him strangle her less hard. She’s blue all over.

  15. Here was Rose McGowan:

    Aha, no. You ain’t tricking me. I’m not reading that.

    1. Who is Rose McGowan, and why should we give a shit what she says?

      1. She is best known for playing Paige Matthews in The WB supernatural drama series Charmed from 2001 to 2006.

        OOOOOOHH, *THAT* Rose Mc….. No, still don’t know why i’m supposed to care.

      2. She dated Marilyn Manson, a man whose entire career hinges on stoking the flames of petty outrage.

        Let’s not be fooled into thinking McGowan definitely isn’t in on the gimmick here. Actress in the movie expresses outrage at the movie’s pre-screening advertising, inevitably culling responses (more advertising) from small-minded culture critics and self-important twitter users with too much time on their hands (but I repeat myself)? Brilliant.

        1. Yeah, I figured out on my own that all of this is just PR-churn

  16. This makes me want to get into advertising, especially in the age of exaggerated outrage and social just-ish internet slacktivism. It’s just so easy-looking.

  17. As ridiculous as SJWs have been for a while now, this particular “controversy” is so fucking pathetic I almost can’t believe it’s real.

    That a Salon writer decided to shit out an article on it is bad enough. But Rose McGowan is now an important voice on feminist issues and depictions of women? The same Rose McGowan whose acting career is mainly the result of her “nice tits” privilege?

    1. It’s marketing for the movie. I hope Robbie or Reason got paid for the promo.

      1. Maybe Rose and J-Law will get into a Twitter fight over it. They’ll go back-and-forth for a few days, entertainment sites will cover it, and they’ll eventually kiss and make up.

        1. Why can’t women just get along?! These feminist heroes have a common enemy in the patriarchy! What is to be gained from arguing??

          A lot?

          Oh. Interesting. Does this mean I ought to check my premises?

    2. She’d look good with my censored in her censored.

  18. The whole concept of “violence against women” as BAD comes from domestic violence… that’s bad.

    If a female MMA fighter beats the living tar out of another female fighter, that’s “violence against (a) women”, but that’s not bad.

    Self defense is another form of violence that’s not “bad”. A male or female defending themselves against a female armed robber is GOOD, but it’s still a violent act against a woman.

    I had a woman assault suspect swing a bat at me. I took her to the ground HARD and placed her in handcuffs. That’s violence against (a) women, but it’s not bad.

    SJW’s don’t want EQUALITY. They want to be special flowers. You don’t see them advocating for women to be drafted. If the X Men (sexist!!!) didn’t have female characters, that would be sexist.

    if there are going to be female superheroes/Xmen, there are going to be violent incidents against them -NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE WOMEN, but because bad guys (and girls) do violence against good guys (and girls),and then the latter defend themselves.

    Mystique (at some points) has been a bad guy. That should be a GOOD thing for women seeking equality. Good and bad characters, EQUAL opportunity. When Mystique beats the living crap out of a whole roomful of men, is that bad?

    1. It’s ok for a woman to beat the shit out of men, I am sure in McGowan’s eyes. If it had been Mystique (Raven?) choking a bad guy would that be ok ?(in her eyes, I am sure).

      Should the female Xmen (OXYMORON!!! derp) stand by while they let the menfolk mutants do the fighting for them?

      When a Sentinel killed Storm (but thankfully the past was changed) in the last movie, was that somehow a more pernicious form of violence than when they took out a male character?

      When Magneto shot Mystique was that worse than when he tries to kill a male Xman?

      The SJW’s want it both ways . They don’t want equality (like true feminists e.g Hoff-Somers).

      Just like if a black dude shoots a cop (40% of cops who are shot … are shot by black males)… that’s not racial

      If a white cop shoots a black dude (just under 30% of those shot by police are black), THAT’s racial

      I am fucking sickened they are in any way validating what McGowan said. It’s fucking moronic.

      1. Principals, not principles.

        1. What Sarcasmic said!!!

          humble apologies.

          1. When you think about it, maybe it should be X-Women and Y-Men.

            Kevin R

  19. “That said, do you think anybody at Fox gave a moment of thought to the issues of offscreen violence to women when it decided that an image…

    Christ, I fucking hope not!

  20. Mostly off-topic, but…

    I’ve not seen this latest X-Men movie, but I’ve seen the rest of them (even the truly abhorrent X-Men Origins: Wolverine).

    I never got why so many people said The Wolverine (the one set in Japan) was such an improvement over Origins. Now that I think of it, I didn’t find Days of Future Past that amazing either.

    In fact this franchise peaked back in 2003 with the second movie, the one with Brian Cox and the “attempted genocide.”

    1. I never got why so many people said The Wolverine (the one set in Japan) was such an improvement over Origins.

      yeah.

      Not sure. Wasn’t the latter one (origins) the “Duet” movie w/ him and Liev Shrieber?

      I have such fuzzy memories of it i’m assuming it must have been so terrible that i repressed most of it.

      The Japan-one was “not bad” IMHO as a former 1990s-X-men-nerd

      1. How was it not bad? Guy spent the entire movie getting his ass kicked, losing every fight, but coming out ok because he was invincible

    2. Days of Future Past. Apocalypse is getting a bad wrap. It was the most X-Men of the X-Men movies with the team of mutant youngsters working as a team to beat a villain. While the movie was flawed, it was entertaining. Better than that piece of shit Star Wars everyone keeps pretending to have liked.

      1. *Days of Future Past sucked. The ending was a complete let down. Throw in a giant cast, have shitty action scenes and never use the sentinels.

        1. I liked the parts where the xmen were getting all killed. That was different.

        2. It’s great, I still listen nearly 40 years later. “Tuesday Afternoon”, “Nights In White Satin”

  21. Oh, I get it.

    ….B-list actress wants cheap PR = uses release of recent big-budget movie to make bullshit-PC complaint, her agent hopes this will attract more interest in listing her in new production….

    1. It works, though. Can’t fault her for doing what works.

    2. I think she gives it away with this:

      20th Century Fox, since you can’t manage to put any women directors on your slate for the next two years, how about you at least replace your ad?”

      She wants to direct and has an axe to grind.

      1. GRINDHOUSE!!!!

        It’s ok to have a (stupid- Quentin— you can’t act, so stop being an egotistical fucknut and putting yourself in your own movies) scene with Tarantino getting all rapey and violent towards Rose’s character, since Tarantino’s dick melts off.

        Was that some kind of symbolic statement about rapists getting STD’s?

  22. BLM thugs assault, trespass, intimidate, violate others free speech… campus admins do NOTHING, order security to not arrest. When CPD arrives, they do the same.

    Campus president later apologizes for this criminal thuggery and basically blames Milo

    THIS is the “soft bigotry of low expectations”, the SJW’s and Campus Left are so racist, they don’t believe that minorities are responsible for their own actions, even assault.

    Where did it happen? Chicago.

    Where 69 people were shot over MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND…where was BLM ? Nowhere

    BLM thugs claims Milo’s free speech directly makes them less safe and is a form of violence.

    ACTUAL violence? No, that’s not an issue because it’s not a Gay British Conservative of Greek-Jewish heritage engaging in discussion on college campuses, it’s ACTUAL violence.

    Has the right ever assaulted a leftwing speaker on college campuses? Coulter has had shit thrown at her and has been verbally threatened in person several times? Milo is threatened and assaulted. I have yet to see a single incident where campus rightwingers assaulted a leftwing speaker.

    1. Dunphy, I have it on good evidence that you are in so deep, your sock puppets have sock puppets. Can you confirm?

      1. Yeah, if that’s the real Dunphy then I really am Tulpa.

    2. Campus conservatives, the vocal sort, anyway, are a self-selected bunch. Much more mindful and contemplative than their emotive sheep-brained colleagues on the left who swallow all the Marxist drivel with not a question nor a clue.

      1. Going against the grain requires much greater effort and wherewithal than going with. This is why, regardless of the facts driving the contradistinction, I’ll tend automatically, heuristically, to side with the lesser-numbered group or individual against the larger group (i.e: mob) in a conflict. It’s irrational.

        1. In the lefty lexicon, “brave” is standing shoulder-to-shoulder in a crowd and jeering at individuals you don’t know but hate with all your being.

          “Cowardice” is voicing dissent against the crowd.

          1. It takes too long to unpack all their terms so as to actually even have a way to address them.

            Last night Eddie posted a Salon article titled something like “11 Questions for Libertarians to See if They’re Hypocrites Using Faulty Logic” and each question on its own was incoherent to me, because I must understand the terms used in it in a completely different way (and/or maybe it’s their logic that’s faulty? Hmmm).

            Taboo your words, then we’ll talk.

            1. “An artificial group conflict in which you use a long wooden cylinder to whack a thrown spheroid, and then run between four safe positions.”

              Russ Roberts approves.

              1. lol

                You can definitely take it to absurd lengths? I don’t think one would ever be wise to say/write something like that in a dialogue? but the generally idea of waving away set talking-points phrases and clich?s in order to really ascertain that you’re discussing nearly the same thing, and to ascertain that you know enough about the object of discussion to discuss it in a different way than you’re used to everybody else talking about it, that’s worthwhile.

            2. Yech…what a salad-toss of bullshit that article is. You can almost imagine the write psyching himself up in a mirror, trying to convince himself of how smart he is.

              1. Sorry, Goldi-I was referring to the Salon article.

              2. You can almost imagine the write psyching himself up in a mirror, trying to convince himself of how smart he is.

                I do the same thing trying to convince myself that people love the muscle shirts I wear.

                1. Well, I wouldn’t say I hate them….

  23. Well, was she being an uppity bitch?

  24. “A medical team will be

  25. I think Rose McGowan and I should discuss this over drinks. At may place.

    I also think the movie was tedious, and they’re desperate to get anybody to talk about it.

    Next time I see J Law in 3-D, she’s gonna have to take her top off if she’s gonna get my $11.50

    And I don’t think that’s misogynistic. She’s just got a great rack.

    Zero stars for tits. One start for monsters. Zero stars for interesting. It’s a one star movie.

    Could have been two stars if . . .

    Any screenwriter who can’t make J Law taking her top off integral to the plot should be blacklisted.

    God damn communists.

    1. Ken is the Bubble Boy

    2. She stopped being mildly attractive about 15 years ago now.

      1. Homo.

      2. When she was 10?

        Oh, you mean Rose.

        I hope.

        1. As long as I have a face, Jennifer Lawrence would always have a place to sit. Of course I meant Rose.

      3. J Law stopped being attractive to you about 15 years ago? She’s only like 25.

    3. The Wolverine cameo was sweet tho! That was a +1 star in my book.

  26. wtf? 2nd try:

    “A medical team will be stationed in the lobby to provide emergency resuscitation to those too faint-hearted to witness the unimaginably terrifying gender violence in this Film!”

    *just like those ’50s horror movies

  27. Maybe we should vote for Bernie.

    http://hotair.com/archives/201…..omic-life/

  28. I didn’t think the Wolverine origin movie was BAD, but then I didn’t see it at the theatre. As a $1 rental, it was fine

    Wolverine (the one that takes place in Japan partly) is way better.

    The X-men movies are good, but the moralizing (by analogy) gets a litttle old. They feel the need to hit you over the head with it more and more. It reminds me of Romero. It started out interesting but over time, it just got redundant, overdone and too obvious. we get it GEORGE. Zombies are symbols and you are making a political statement, but if the movie sucks… it still sucks

    The whole theme of days of future past is that even if a guy is evil as fuck , killing him has worse ramifications than letting him live.

    It’s the opposite conclusion of the “if you could go back in time and kill Hitler would you” conclusion that most people come to decide

    Over and over, X-Men enforces the idea that violence is never the answer (except when it is), when it comes to KEY characters, but when it comes to “screen fodder”, they are inconsequential.

    It’s a weirdly inconsistent message. It’s even at times, anti-self defense. And of course the Sentinels are MACHINES, so they can be ok with ripping them apart without causing any (god forbid) human bloodshed.

    1. The whole theme of days of future past is that even if a guy is evil as fuck , killing him has worse ramifications than letting him live.

      The West is fundamentally getting fucked by Mommy values which hold that defeating the enemy is evil.

    2. I saw it in the theater with my wife and got very laid when we got home. Five stars.

      1. I’m talking about how many stars I was seeing, not how many I would give the movie.

      2. These are the types of movie reviews we need more of.

        1. “Overall, I’d rate the movie at 3 out of 5 BJs.”

  29. Mary Elizabeth Williams does not believe this poster is sexist. Mary understands the dynamics of publishing a column online, and the publish or perish nature of her craft. Pageviews drive profit and that in turn pays (which I can only hope is pretty meager) her salary. So she posts drek she wouldn’t even joke about over cosmotinis with girlfriends, but does it po-faced for her rag because other writers whose job it is to drive pageviews *cough ROBBY cough* will link to it in the service of writing their own histrionic affirmations or condemnations, thereby perpetuating the misconception that anyone, anywhere, believes this garbage.

    1. Eventually, though, the outrage becomes real, bootstrapped into existence. I mean, not among the professional commentators, but among readers and (a minority of) everyday people.

      Robby gets Reason a lot more traffic than it’d otherwise receive. It’s understandable.

      1. I don’t think it would if not for the media machine cracking up to eleven and giving nothingburger stories the imprimatur of widespread public appeal. Most of my interest in Robby’s posts isn’t in the subject, which is almost always dumbfounding in the I-just-lost-IQ-points sense. Nothing campus activists do is or likely will be enlightening or particularly interesting. I read Robby’s posts for the same reason tabloid journalism still thrives, to find out what the “other” thinks (or claims to think). And it’s just perpetuating the problem. It gives these assholes an outsized influence when they pretend they can put up numbers or influence. They’re a handful of privileged, know-nothing millennials and aging professors whose only contribution to society is having exiled themselves to academia. The only reason these people have a voice is because their vapid, poorly written opinions reverberate around the cliquish media machine like the Great Wizard of Oz.

        1. Nothing campus activists do is or likely will be enlightening or particularly interesting.

          Amen

          1. I wrote earlier today that interesectional feminists don’t enjoy sex nearly as much as they enjoy writing and talking about it, that it’s something they feel obligated to try on occasion because the old lefties they emulate found it contrarian and liberating. I think that goes for most of what progressives say and do: it’s much more about making BOLD and CLASHING statements than it is about achieving anything or spreading awareness or creating dialogue or legitimizing a point of view or whatever else they claim to want and the only way they seem to think they can achieve these things is by writing tedious, jargon-dribbling treatises that half a dozen people will skim and most will skip to the concluding paragraph. That, and standing in the quad with a bullhorn reciting cringeworthy mantras about losing their chains or taking back the night. I’ve said time and again they have no philosophy, no guiding principles, just a grabbag of Marxist twaddle and enough unearned and undeserved grievances to build a skull throne. Well, in addition to no philosophy they have no end-game, no utopian vision in mind (despite being ardent utopians), not even an exit strategy. Progressives are wannabe theater majors without the balls or the gumption or the talent to take to the stage. Their histrionics could fill stadiums, but nobody would be listening. So instead they take to Tumblr or the administration offices and act their blessed little hearts out for a poorly-thought-out cause.

            1. (Similarly, I don’t have the gumption or the balls, and probably not the talent, to take to writing in a real way. So I lurk on forums and pester other posters with 1500-word mini-essays.)

              1. Progressives are wannabe theater majors

                I think there’s some truth in that. I think if you expanded on that idea and burned away the fat you’d find yourself just re-iterating the same sorts of points Eric Hoffer made re: “True Believers”

                Namely = “”‘Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for the lost faith in ourselves.'””

                People who want to cast themselves as a small-cog in a bigger, collective-drama do so because it serves 2 purposes = it gives their lives meaning, but at the same time absolves them of any responsibility to themselves as a person… they no longer need to worry about *their own* story, or their own virtues or vices. They become part of something larger which makes them good.

                it allows them to stop growing. it provides a comforting story about who they are, and who other people are in relation to themselves (‘allies or enemies’)

                this isn’t unique to progressives, obviously – its true for anyone who becomes overly attached to some “movement”, and see their adherence to that movement’s aims as a prosthetic identity.

                It often allows them to become utter shits, personality wise. (see: Bo)

                1. Not just failed actors and artists (you know who else was a failed artist…?) but self-aggrandizing twerps for whom being the center of attention isn’t merely desirable but a moral imperative. This is why social justice is the demesne of concern-trolling white women, why feminism is the core point of attachment for all the various Marxist offshoots like BLM, and why feminists take it with such high dudgeon when they’re criticized or embarrassed by their coterie of hangers-on in lesser movement: We are social justice, you ungrateful bastards! We paved the trail, we earned the spotlight, and we rent it out to you shitheels out of moral condescension, and you don’t get to dictate terms to us.

                  1. So you’re right, it is a matter of faith in their progressive secular orthodoxy, but there’s also a great deal of social and political capital tied up in the cause. And I think it’s because for the most part these people are raging narcissists with fragile egos, failed actors in other words, for whom prevailing on and perverting traditional notions of chivalry has allowed them to create a cottage industry in manufacturing and handing out victimhood in exchange for logrolling the greater progressive cause. It’s worked for several decades running, because many Americans have felt genuine contrition at the plights of minorities, because of the long march through the institutions, and because progressives themselves became a formidable force for making and breaking personalities. Much like feminism attained power on the back of masculine chivalry, it brought onboard numerous client movements under the aegis of social equity.

                    1. ^ Spot. On.

        2. I don’t think it would if not for the media machine cracking up to eleven and giving nothingburger stories the imprimatur of widespread public appeal.

          Oh, definitely not. But the media machine is going to continue doing this because it’s the thing from which they most significantly profit.

          The only reason these people have a voice is because their vapid, poorly written opinions reverberate around the cliquish media machine like the Great Wizard of Oz.

          That’s why I think it’s not so much an outsized influence so much as an apparently (to those of us paying some attention to the reverberations within the bubble)?but non-factually?outsized influence. I think these pop culture critiques tend to escape the bubble but in tempered form: they really just make people outside of the bubble more aware of the object of discussion, but not of the thematic content, because who other than the clique really cares?

          Relatively few people are clicking on and reading the articles linked by friends on Facebook, but they’re seeing the headlines. They’re seeing the name of the movie. The thematic social-science arguments are just mental masturbation for and among pop culture writers?and among no one else. But they provide free advertising for the movie and nab a few more readers and writers to temporarily join the outrage-circle-jerk, thereby profiting ever so slightly themselves.

          1. That’s a good point. I’ll have to internalize that.

            You know, I would probably be a much happier man if I had some sort of literary bulimia. I could read these things purely for the joy of reading derpy histrionics, and then purge them from my brain when I’m satisfied.

            1. Derpetologist needs to teach a course. I’d like to learn that too.

              1. Derpetologist is a masochist.

          2. Also, I think part of their success in winning or gaining ground in cultural debates is that a lot of their subjects are very marginal and very theoretical. When it’s transgenders, a condition which affects somewhere in the five-digit-number-range of people in the U.S., there’s very little social capital lost in saying “Look, these people should be accommodated.” Any one person’s personal investment in the issue is going to be vanishingly small. When the rubber meets the road and their ideas are tried out, the dynamics are likely to shift against the progressives. It’s one thing to argue taxes should be raised on corporations, another to explain to rafts of laid-off workers where their jobs went.

  30. There is a major problem when the men and women at 20th Century Fox think casual violence against women is the way to market a film. There is no context in the ad, just a woman getting strangled.

    Comic books are about violent conflict. I haven’t seen the movie, but from the trailers, it seems clear that Mystique ends up the leader of the Xmen. A poster of the leader of one side fighting the leader of the other side is an entirely appropriate way to advertise the plot.

    Bad guys, like Apocalypse, hurt women. Hurting women is evil. That’s it.

    But I don’t think there is much denying the the S&M and sexualization in the poster. That’s a bonus that you see all the time. Women controlled and hurt pushes all sorts of buttons for men and women. Part of it is no one *cares* if men are hurt. It’s always the Damsel in Distress, because a Dude in Distress provokes distaste and aversion, not empathy and outrage.

    If the poster had depicted Apocalypse choking, say, Magneto, would we accuse it of advocating violence against men? Against Jews? I don’t think so.

    Violence against White Men is good. Whitey is The Devil. And with increasing antisemitism from all directions, violence against Jews is pretty hip too.

    1. The complaint about Hollywood profiting from sexualized violence against women is just a tad hypocritical of Rose.

      In Death Proof, she’s kidnapped, tortured, then murdered, with her pleading for her life before being killed.

      In Planet Terror, she’s a stripper who gives a show, who is run down with a truck and loses a leg, is made to strip with a wooden leg, and is crawling away with a stub leg while a decomposing mutant man approaches to rape her. Then she gets a machine gun to attach to her stub and becomes a killing machine. At the end of the strip show, and when she loses her leg, they make a big pathos play with her weeping.

      1. (immediately goes to download and watch Planet Terror)

      2. Offensive movie poster featuring Rose McGowan.

  31. Cop tells dying man that he’s acting

    http://nbc4i.com/2016/06/03/of…..re-acting/

    1. “I thought he was acting” ^ cop => you must acquit

    2. Bear in mind, it wasn’t just the cops – the hospital kicked him out despite him having chest pains and he stayed around because he didn’t feel better, so they called the cops on him.

      The cops thought he was faking because the hospital basically told him he was healthy enough to leave.

  32. Violence is something the villain of the film is doing. Bad guys, like Apocalypse, hurt women. Hurting women is evil. That’s it.

    Well, that may be the problem. Apocalypse is a blue dude who wants to destroy everything people ever built, kill almost everybody, and play King-of-the-Hill over whoever’s left.

    Progressives don’t see him as “the villain of the film.” They’re cheering him on.

    1. Yes, the Atomic Bomb is bad, but people often overlook how it affects women the worst.

      1. “Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.”

        — Hillary Clinton

        1. Hey, surviving is way harder than getting blown up. Those lazy fucking men, just slacking around in their graves all day, what the fuck.

  33. I’m surprised they aren’t crying racism, too, because she’s bright blue and he’s dark blue.

    1. Violence against a colored woman!

  34. If it promoted violence against men it would pas their muster?

    1. Oh my god, I hope I never see a movie poster that contains representations of violence being done against men!

  35. TTD;DR

    (Topic Too Dumb; Didn’t Read)

  36. “There is a major problem when the men and women at 20th Century Fox think *casual* violence against women is the way to market a film.”

    The guy looks a bit distracted, maybe, but I wouldn’t call it “casual.”

  37. So we’re all just going to pretend not to notice the obvious othering involved in having the character relying on his right hand, the dominant hand, the dexterous hand, the non-sinister hand? How long will this shameful denigration and denial of left-handedness endure? For shame, Hollywood, for shame.

    1. You’re right. There’s nothing left to say.

  38. This is freaking amazing.

    So = there are epic-floods in Paris, right? The Seine is overflowing. And Reuters has yet another one of their photo montages.

    You’d think they were *trying* to capture “funny Parisian cliches”

    e.g.

    Man refuses to remove scarf off while bailing out his living room

    Man risks life wading through waist-deep water to get baguette from local baker

    The only thing missing… is a man up to his neck in water, smoking a cigarette

    1. Goddamn Libertarians causing flooding!

      1. *Marine LePen scans down her list of scape-goats, laughs, writes an x next to the entry marked “Muslims”*

  39. What if Apoc was gently showing Mysti the beauty of anal love?

    1. “In other news, their recent success at the box office has enabled 20th Century Fox to purchase planet Earth.”

  40. O/T, but movie related:

    The greatest professionally-written sentence found today–

    The corpse, as corpses tend to be, is very gassy, and has an admirable hard-on, but also slowly begins to come back to life through the power of friendship, which is uncharacteristic of corpses.

    http://theweek.com/articles/62…..ry-farting

    1. So when he writes that Paul Dano “rides” him…? I mean, he mentioned the hard-on.

      This movie should have some gay necrophilia. Why be modest?

  41. “There is a major problem when the men and women at 20th Century Fox think casual violence against women is the way to market a film. There is no context in the ad, just a woman getting strangled. The fact that no one flagged this is offensive and frankly, stupid. The geniuses behind this, and I use that term lightly, need to to take a long hard look at the mirror and see how they are contributing to society. Imagine if it were a black man being strangled by a white man, or a gay male being strangled by a hetero? The outcry would be enormous. So let’s right this wrong. 20th Century Fox, since you can’t manage to put any women directors on your slate for the next two years, how about you at least replace your ad?”

    Translation: “I’m really not well known and if I attempt to go full retard, I might get some more screen time.”

  42. Is This X-Men: Apocalypse Poster Really Promoting Violence Against Women?

    No. Fuck off, McGowan.

    Also WTF with Reason even bothering to humor these stupid claims from stupid celebrities? And why does it always seem to be Soave giving them the most credibility? Is he the new token bleeding heart and heir successor to Steve Chapman?

  43. OK, so apparently they show the *villain,* doing villainous stuff.

    Now, don’t force me to look it up, but isn’t the woman actually a mutant shape-shifter who can become a man if she wants?

    And isn’t she a villain, too?

    So confusing.

    1. Now I went and read the post.

      Rico is not nearly as wimpy as on the college posts. Instead of the usual kid glove treatment, he goes right after the SJWs with the first couple sentences.

  44. I thought it was promoting violence against blue mutants by grey mutants. Who knew?

  45. At IGN that particular scene from the trailer was the butt of the joke for the commenting community. A few porn references were floated about.

    The world perceived by the SJW crowd and the rest is just worlds apart. We see a goofy looking still in which Jennifer Lawrence looks like she’s having an orgasm or about to engage in oral sex. The feminist warriors see a Donald Trump pro rape poster.

  46. Sounds like McGowan’s tits aren’t getting her enough attention anymore, so she’s grasping at that SJW straw.

    -jcr

  47. “In our enthusiasm to show the villainy of the character Apocalypse we didn’t immediately recognize the upsetting connotation of this image in print form. Once we realized how insensitive it was, we quickly took steps to remove those materials. We apologize for our actions and would never condone violence against women.”

    FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK! Don’t apologize to these morons it only makes them bolder!

    1. That was exactly my take. You can’t really blame Illinois Nazis for being Illinois Nazis. But haven’t we learned to ignore these people yet?

      I guess not. I thought maybe Trump had taught folks that the correct response to a stupid, troll-ish objection is “you are stupid and fat.”

      The only super-power these professional trolls have is people paying attention. If you stop feeding the trolls, they’ll go away. But everyone has to agree to stop feeding the trolls. It only takes a couple of guileless troll-feeders to keep their super-powers alive.

  48. “Salon (the real news website, ”

    Uh…No.

  49. I quit my office job and now I am getting paid 90 Dollars hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was to try-something different. 1 years after…I can say my life is changed completely for the better! Check it out what i do.E2..

    SEE HERE—-> OmegaJobs.Tk

  50. She [McGowan] quoted a friend’s discussion of “the brutality of that hideous X-Men poster” with his nine-year-old daughter.

    “Her words: ‘Dad, why is that monster man committing violence against a woman?’ This from a 9-year-old. If she can see it, why can’t Fox?”

    Am I expected to believe this? Nine-year-olds don’t talk like that, unless they’re swimming in an SJW atmosphere.

    1. More likely, it was “Daddy, when you said you were going to choke a bitch, is that what you meant?”

  51. Make 14500 bucks every month… Start doing online computer-based work through our website. I have been working from home for 1 years now and I love it. I don’t have a boss standing over my shoulder and I make my own hours. The tips below are very informative and anyone currently working from home or planning to in the future could use this website…
    ——————————– http://www.earnmore9.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.