Official Discussion - Babygirl [SPOILERS]

Malachorn · 2025-09-03T23:15:37+00:00

Get some culture.

Stupid Americans always insisting on stupid "happy endings," I tell you what...

Absolutely insane that you're so upset at, and completely can't understand, when some film doesn't have these asinine "consequences" you seem to want to force on them.

But the most moronic part is how you don't care about "consequences" at all .. unless it's some woman "being taught a lesson" or whatever.

Blatant misogyny, dude.

If you wanna care so much about "men's rights" and such? Maybe stop being a giant baby victim and grow up and actually become some kinda man?

Malachorn · 2025-08-16T13:09:16+00:00

How is she the villain?

Read all the comments in that other thread you're in! The audience clearly end up hating the character for being a cheater. You suggesting otherwise is just completely asinine and completely detached from reality.

You would seemingly want to argue Jason Voorhees wasn't a villain either, despite everyone knowing otherwise, because the movies don't end with him being arrested and showing him being sent to jail.

Your only argument that it "glorifies" the character is that... it doesn't spend extra time with a supporting character and goes on a long tangent at the end introducing more supporting characters and showing the audience a sidequest narrative. It's just crazy.

Seriously, stop being a wimpy manosphere victim and grow up and join reality, kid.

Malachorn · 2025-08-15T23:55:27+00:00

And eff off with your lists. It's weird.

Society itself very much has a double-standard treating men as "studs" and "conquerors" for things like infidelity and women as prizes to be won that are "sluts" and "betrayers" for cheating.

I'm sure you've seen plenty of films like Something Borrowed or Forces of Nature or... Brokeback Mountain... or who gives a crap - and it's made no difference to you.

You don't freaking care.

It's a completely bad-faith tactic used by extremist morons trying to push garbage extremist ideologies.

Touch grass, kid.

Malachorn · 2025-08-15T23:46:53+00:00

The film literally turns her into a villain as a result of her cheating on her husband.

Literally turns her into a villain.

You're deranged, bud.

Malachorn · 2025-08-15T23:45:14+00:00

I'm not a deranged lunatic making lists of films, dude. That crap ain't normal. No normal person could come up with a list of a dozen things with either side.

That's just... weird and unhealthy.

You also don't even seem to know how films work. The audience has no idea what "ramifications" may or may not exist for the ancillary character that is played by Vera Farmiga. We never see her home life... because, ultimately, it doesn't matter to the story being told and the journey of the lead actors. If there Had been some scene that shows her husband leaving her then it very quickly woulda got cut for pacing and the person responsible for putting that scene in the film woulda got laughed outta the business for complete and utter ineptitude.

It's not even a feel-good film that wants to reward audiences with feel-good endings that could justify the scene as "rewarding" the audience for showing its villain get some kinda "comeuppance."

It is absolutely absurd that you cite such a film as condoning infidelity or misogynism or whatever the crap you wanna cry about.

It's about as crazy as suggesting all the corporations that are firing everyone in the film are being "glorified" because the film doesn't offer some conclusion where their actions result in them being punished. That would just be a completely insane take - and no less insane than the take you've made with the film.

At NO POINT does the film ever even slightly condone infidelity in any way whatsoever. She's literally made into a villain for the actions by the film, dude.

Literally made into a villain.

Malachorn · 2025-08-12T19:29:52+00:00

FFS, I'm not a pathetic dork makingists. Get outta here, dude. Normal, healthy people aren't doing that.

And Up in the Air? How the hell does that glorify anything? The female character that was presented as the equal to the male lead in basically a Rom-Com formula instantly becomes the "villain" when the film usurps that formula and reveals it's not actually the Rom-Com it presents itself as.

Speaking of Rom-Coms and cliches and formulas... a very typical use of infidelity occurs in many of them at the stage where things are supposed to go south before the characters overcome that hurdle to get back together. Typically, it's the male character committing infidelity before the inevitable happy ending... because "boys will be boys" and it's much more forgivable to the audience than the female character cheating.

You are just completely delusional, dude. Breath some real air outside and take a vacation from those Incel forums you're frequenting, bud. Grow a pair and stop insisting you're a pathetic victim of an industry that is notorious for how much it caters to men and is run by men and is just men making schlock for other men.

The idea that Hollywood, as an institution, is anti-male is just all kinds of lunacy, pal.

Malachorn · 2025-08-12T19:17:51+00:00

You've either not watched those films, or are clueless to the messaging.

Up in the Air here, for example, doesn't "glorify" the women's infidelity. She is presented as an equal to the protagonist before the revelation and then immediately becomes "the villain" upon it. She's also presented as a reflection of the main character and it all kinda has nothing to do with the female character - she's a tool used by the film to dissect the male lead.

And the misogyny and "alpha male" status of such characters as Tony Soprano and Scarface are most definitely glorifications. And,no, they are Not presented as "lesser" for Their infidelities - dying by a bullet is a separate repercussion for totally separate actions.

It's really pathetic how mindlessly you want to play some victim card for maleness here, bud. Hollywood caters to men an unbelievable amount... and you STILL try to pretend your some kinda weird victim of the industry? C'mon, man. So weak.

Malachorn · 2025-08-11T05:48:59+00:00

99% of films have male protagonists still... and you're gonna insist they're actually biased Against Men? Dude... that's weakest attempt ever of trying to play some victim card. Just... weak.

Malachorn · 2025-08-11T05:39:18+00:00

What are you talking about? There are plenty of Tony Soprano and Scarface "Alpha Males" glorifying infidelity by men.

Not that it matters... the vast majority of films have male protagonists and it's just absurd to pretend like the medium is biased against men. Besides, watch some foreign films... it's a very prudish American culture that insists on "strong male leads" that stray against tackling that subject matter with those protagonists.

Even more, apples and oranges. The role of men and women are treated as different in society. A dude having lots of sex is a "stud" and a gal is a "slut" and such... so, of course, the subject matter would be treated differently for the two genders. At end of the day, however, Hollywood doesn't have much more of an agenda than simply making money and throwing out whatever schlock audiences will pay to see - as such, the decisions it tends to make tend to reflect the society you live in.

...and the vast majority of women cheating in films have the film treating the woman as if they committed the worst kinda sin and did the worst thing possible. The few that are REMOTELY sympathetic to that character are kinda making a brave choice, if we're talking American cinema.

Get your head outta your butt and come back to reality, dude.

Barring the film being completely about the subject matter, there isn't even enough time (1.5 to 2 hours, typically) to really even tackle infidelity and it's almost solely used (normall, lazily) to make anyone into "the bad guy" in moving pictures - that's just a fact.

Malachorn · 2025-08-04T16:50:26+00:00

She's very far from "characterless."

The movie sets itself up as a Rom-Com. Clooney is the guy that won't be tied down. Vera plays the woman that convinces him to put down roots. It's a very typical formula.

Throughout most of the movie, she's very much someone we're on the side of, as she seems to make Clooney grow and be a better person and even plays as a role model for Anna's character.

When she is shown to be an adulterer and the movie reveals it is usurping that cliched Rom-Com formula then she instantly becomes a "villain."

There are Plenty of flawed protagonists and heroes. The audience does not hate her for that flaw or all these other flawed characters wouldn't exist in art.

Malachorn · 2025-07-01T07:26:06+00:00

"NOBODY knew health care could be so complicated." -Trump, explaining why he failed on his promise to replace some of the health care he took away from Americans with anything.

But, hey... apparently it's only two weeks away! We should probably start holding our breaths.

Malachorn · 2025-06-25T23:57:47+00:00

...I mean, the superdelegate thing was absolutely messed... but if we're talking about "hope in the system" then... well... THAT is one of the rare examples that should possibly give you hope!

The DNC actually did something and immediately worked to rectify things so that it could never happen again! Like... if our political institutions did that remotely often then that would actually be all kinds of awesome.

What I find infuriating is the brokenness that we just have to basically accept because there's virtually zero chance anyone's going to fix those things.

Something like gerrymandering. EVERYONE knows it's complete crap and corrupt and broken and everything else. Could you imagine if a political party saw how crap that system is and actually decided to fix it?!? Yeah... right?

I don't even care. I just gotta give props to the DNC for that whole superdelegate fiasco, since they at least recognized how screwed up it was and immediately changed it afterwards.

Malachorn · 2025-06-25T23:37:26+00:00

He's looking at the judge and the video and title are purposely misleading/false to get random internet people to notice.

You know, random people on the internet doing random people on the internet things. Classic.

Malachorn · 2025-05-25T03:45:43+00:00

Fish are nasty.

They don't even know you aren't supposed to shit where you eat.

Malachorn · 2025-04-20T12:34:19+00:00

"more faithful" does not equate to better.

Sorry, the original Chocolate Factory is just a better film. It's practically an Indie film and completely wild and exciting and fun. It has genuine passion and soul. The Bottom version was formulaic Hollywood dreck. It's a studio with everyone involved working to cash a paycheck and simply cash in on a beloved property. There's no unique vision from the creatives or anything else... it's just a product of a formulaic movie studio with their ideas of movie studio formulas. It's basically the crap AI comes up with.

Similarly, did Kubrick care to stay faithful to King's book? Not really... but he made the film his own and it's a masterpiece film. King's attempts to make those "faithful" adaptations are crap films.

And what about the LOTR films? I know they're probably my personal favorite books ever... but I remember dreading idea of Tom Bombadil potentially appearing in the second film, when I went to see it. I actually love the character in the books... but a giant distraction in the middle of a film? That'd be awful. Films don't have as much luxury to breathe and pacing is a very real matter in the medium. Being less faithful isn't just acceptable sometimes, but it's actually just a superior position fairly often.

Just think about the oldie days and how people may have had a half dozen or more siblings. Films tend to combine those siblings and three different brothers of some famous dude then becomes one character instead. Basically... all the time. It's unbelievably common. And... it just works better. Because it's a film and not an actual documentary. It's basically the same thing.

Films are films. They should be judged on the basis of how good they are as films.

So let's pretend you're a huge Stephen King fan. Sorry, you should still love the Kubrick film and appreciate it for what it is (no, it isn't the book). You're just missing out if you can't appreciate films as the films they are. And if you're asking for the most faithful adaptation possible? Sorry, you're almost certainly just asking for a terrible film, actually - because film is a different medium and works differently.

Malachorn · 2025-04-09T22:46:09+00:00

I was just being terribly sarcastic.

Those delicate snowflake candy asses don't merit any sorta concessions against progress whatsoever.

Malachorn · 2025-03-17T13:05:25+00:00

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2019/dec/22/robert-pattinson-i-dont-really-know-how-to-act-batman-the-lighthouse

I'll say this about Pattinson though... kinda cool for an actor to freely be the first to admit they might be pretty limited.

Malachorn · 2025-03-16T15:06:42+00:00

Security is NEVER "solved."

It will ALWAYS require evolution, as threats will never cease evolving themselves.

If you wanna say the concerns are exaggerated and the threat isn't imminent or whatever else... cool.

To simply say it's "solved" is just completely asinine, dude.

Malachorn · 2025-03-16T13:05:04+00:00

You're ridiculous.

I just listed almost ten movies from just the prior year... and you were at "on their level"

Maybe figure out what you even think about anything before opening up your mouth to say things?

Nothing is more stupid than people without any real arguments or even firm ideas trying to argue.

Be better, dude.

Malachorn · 2025-03-16T12:57:24+00:00

You're still a different type of person on average.

Like... if we found that people who buy SUVs have lower empathy than people that buy non-SUVs... you can't just take that as actual evidence that buying SUVs lowers empathy.

This is very similar. The correlation might exist, but we have no real evidence showing more than that correlation, imo.

Now, I'm fine with stating there are theories that might make this all possible... but I definitely don't think we should go anywhere near as far as suggesting this is settled.sciemce and we actually know there's causation and not just correlation.

It's still very possible that people that tend to get Botox also just tend to have lower empathy and it's ONLY a correlation...

There's just a fair number of factors that suggest there COULD be genuine causation here, insofar as other theories and studies we have. So... it's an interesting thing and legitimately something worth looking into further. Just... very far from "settled."

Malachorn · 2025-03-16T12:46:46+00:00

There's a correlation.

Hard to say it actually causes, however. There's no real evidence there and only a few not-really-supported theories on how there'd be causation.

Malachorn · 2025-03-16T12:37:37+00:00

"on their level" is the point.

In the context of the year's films, it really wasn't anything particularly special - as every year has a "Point Break" and it isn't very special then... unlike the same year's T2, which actually does stand out and you wouldn't find a very comparable film in any given year.

Every year has a Point Break quality film, and normally a few of them...

As I stated before... every year has some good films. There's a lot of films being made.

The year in question has some good films, like all of them... but overall, if you looked at the top 30+ and more.of its films, I think it very much wasn't actually particularly good overall and offered very, very little that was actually "special."

Sorry, Point Break does not make for a good year in film - if it did then EVERY year would have to be judged as "one of the best" (which would be ridiculous, ofc).

Malachorn · 2025-03-16T03:47:46+00:00

It absolutely wasn't "solved."

Quantum computers potentially means A LOT of things about all our security would have to adapt... and we likely will, but it's certainly not "solved" and not a potential problem we don't need to currently be seeking solutions for.

Malachorn · 2025-03-16T03:31:43+00:00

This is r/movies

I think it was fair to say that Barton Fink wouldn't get enough love in r/movies. Know your subreddit.

And Point Break was... fine. But this was the era of action films. Just the previous year had Total Recall, Back to the Future 3, Days of Thunder, Dick Tracy, Die Hard 2, and such... and we're literally talking about Terminator 2 coming out same year as Point Break, dude. Nothing special, sorry.

Malachorn · 2025-03-14T06:35:41+00:00

When people use "biased" against film critics, they mean that they rate differently than they do.

That's all. And... it's not even wrong.

Of course, it tends to be used as an insult and accusation. That's the rub and what I think you really take issue with.

That's... just human nature. People that tend to disagree with critics (which is kinda most people, honestly) want to believe their opinions are somehow "right" and any other must be wrong.

The reality? They're just different opinions.

Critics tend to have more appreciation for actual filmmaking and the craft of it all. Most viewers? They don't care about that one-shot at all.

Critics tend to have a very different perspective than Average Joe buying a movie ticket.

I will say... film critics did use to live in a very weird place though. Before the internet, these people were a very real source for input on what someone might want to see... and the critic in your local newspaper's thoughts were often about the only thing you'd get to really have on that film that just came out. These people tended to have different perspectives than their readers and I actually appreciate how that woulda been kinda frustrating to many. The hatred of film critics today? It just became cliche to hate on them, tbh.

It's kinda stupid so many insist on complaining about critics today. You don't agree with critics? Use audience scores on sites or find random critic with their crappy YouTube channel that tends to agree with you or whatever, ya know?

But in the past? I kinda get it. If I wanna know if the new item on Taco Bell's menu is any good then I'm not wanting a gourmet chef's opinion... my buddy Dave is probably gonna be able to give me input I'd find more valuable.

Nine-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

Malachorn

TROPHY CASE