Michael Rymer is rumored to be the director of the upcoming Witchblade movie.

P-C, I saw King Kong on a recent(ish) flight, and was mightily, mightily underwhelmed. Too long, too slow, too many weird gross giant bugs, too much Jack Black.

Meh.

Discussion Monday:

I've been reading a lot of blogs that find Iron Man to be sexist (at best) or downright misogynist (at worst).

What say you all?

I haven't seen it yet! I will try and remedy that this week.

Thoughts without having seen it --

Is it possible that *Tony Stark* is sexist and possibly misogynistic?

By which I mean, people frequently react to a character without stopping to think that maybe the character is not meant to represent the work as a whole, or the actual opinions of the author. Lolita being a good example -- Yes, Humbert Humbert is a pederast, but he is not admirable or meant to be an example of good behavior, nor is he meant to represent the author's approval of snatching up underage girls and trying to make them your lover.

So yeah, it strikes me as terribly likely (again, without having seen it yet) that Tony Stark is meant to be misogynistic, but that does not meant the film is misogynistic.

Just my initial thoughts.

What say you all?

I say huh. I mean, sure impossible-to-run-in-shoes and UST that the plot really didn't need, but if there was anything more -ist than your average superhero movie, I really didn't see it.

I've been reading a lot of blogs that find Iron Man to be sexist (at best) or downright misogynist (at worst).

What say you all?

Did they want it to be called Iron Woman instead? I feel like blogs will call anything sexist (at best) or downright misogynist (at worst). Little things get magnified. I'm not sure what's particularly sexist about Iron Man (besides, well, the fact that Tony Stark is a womanizer...and that's not portrayed as a good thing, so...). Especially since Pepper is actually, like, useful and stuff. And doesn't swoon and fall into Tony's arms at a moment's notice.

there was anything more -ist than your average superhero movie, I really didn't see it.

Yeah, I'm with amych.

Edit: Which is to say that there were the requisite moments that made me roll my eyes, but nothing beyond any other movie out there.

So yeah, it strikes me as terribly likely (again, without having seen it yet) that Tony Stark is meant to be misogynistic, but that does not meant the film is misogynistic.

I've read many arguments that, *because* the main character is a sexist pig (at least, at the beginning), the movie is sexist. I don't agree.

Especially since Pepper is actually, like, useful and stuff. And doesn't swoon and fall into Tony's arms at a moment's notice.

But she's just an assistant! The movie could have made her an engineer*, or a hacker** instead of just a secretary! And when she had her Big Climactic Moment, she got all irrational and told Tony she couldn't do it because it might kill him!***

(Those are more arguments from the blogverse as to why it's a sexist movie.)

*No, they couldn't have.

**No, they couldn't have.

***If you think Rhody wouldn't have said the same thing, perhaps coded in a manly way, you're really kidding yourself. The Delay of Destroying the Flabotnum is a time-honored trope in action movies, regardless of who's doing the delaying.

The arguments seem to say "How dare you make a comic-book movie that reflects the content of the comic book!"

I mean, how many people object to Alfred's presence in Batman?

Right?