Question aboud the End (Spoilers)
.
.
.
.
Was the penis and explosion at the end digital or was it supposed to be real?
It's hard to tell. I was thinking it was digital, but the way they talked about it, it might have been real. I'm not sure.
shareGood question. I don't know, I think it was actually supposed to have blown up, but I couldn't figure out if the penis head was supposed to actually be there or just a digitally altered add on to the feed. Confusing....
shareI think it was done digitally, or rather that they replaced the real picture of the monument with their own pre-made image. I think if they were to place an enormous penis on top of a monument they would have practiced and prepared for that a little more than on entering a tv-station. Plus, they showed the image of the monument only minutes before, and I doubt they would be able to organize it in such a short time, not to mention all the work and danger involved. I doubt the group would risk killing people by actually blowing up a monument. The show host thought it was real because the group had seized control over the cameras.
I thought the last sequence of them taking over the tv-station was absurd, but I liked it a lot:)
See that's what I don't get.... So the image and presumably the explosion, were just digital additions by the C(I)A. So...oh big deal, they added some bad cgi to an image. That's their big final action?
sharelol apparently you don't get it.
the show was talking about celebrating the monument, which is phallic- as are most of our national monuments. it is, after all, a man's world.
the FEMINIST group is trying to show people that, and are expressing their need to tear these things down.
It was a big deal for them because their ideas were finally seen nationally (which before, no one even saw their website but them). They wanted to be known and responsible, just like any other terrorist group. They also were probably able to reach a feminist audience given that the show was in that genre (despite the monument ordeal)
The people freaked out because they were broadcasting the image of a penis (Nc-17 material) on a show that should have been PG-- if not G. And what was worse, they couldn't get it off the screen. Do you know how much money they could be sued for because of that? And then it blew up-- which they thought was real.
Did you even see the movie? I'm guessing no...
Was that to me? Yes, I saw the movie. I was dying to watch it since I'm a big But I'm a Cheerleader and Jamie Babbit fan, but I didn't get or like this movie at all.
Their ideas weren't seen nationally, a bad cgi penis was. Do you really think that anyone would see that image and suddenly decide to do more thinking on women's rights? Everyone knows that monument and a lot of others are phallic shaped, I really doubt anyone would sudenly go "Oh my gosh, the Washington Monument is penis-like...hmmm...maybe I should respect women more.". So really, what did they accomplish?
As someone who belongs to anti-homophic bullying organizations, works with youth and human rights and works in queer media...I just don't see how pulling some lame stunt means anything. It doesn't change the world, hard work does. And obviously boring, weekly volunteering doesn't make for an exciting or even good movie, but I don't believe this stunt did either. A mass information campaign wouldn't been more interesting, even something closer to the installation pieces at the start of the film, but on a grander scale. That would accomplish more.
Scrolling really impactful facts and images might've made people think, a penis just makes people giggle. And the station would not have been fined for a hi-jack, though the girls could've been if they were caught.
First of all, as to the stunts issue, I'm just going to c&p what I told someone else:
"I think you're just nitpicking now, especially about their stunts. They are clits in action. They are taking action. Big or small, it doesn't matter-- they are attempting to make a difference. I don't think they were supposed to be portrayed as some serious radical feminist terrorist group; I think they were just a bunch of oppressed teenage lesbian wannabes. They were riot girrrls at best...
They weren't just wannabe terrorists, they were *friends*-- hanging out, working on their website and the mannequins and probably reading articles, looking up protests and petitions online. They were kids, for christ's sake. What, exactly, were you expecting them to do?
I think the idea was that they were supposed to be yuppies. Hence the Itty Bitty Titty COMMITTEE. Not the Itty Bitty Titty RADICAL TERRORIST GROUP."
Aside from that, regarding your claim that the station would not have been fined/sued for hi-jack, I have two words for you:
Super
Bowl
It doesn't matter how it happened, whether they were "hi-jacked" or a performer had a WARDROBE MALFUNCTION. Someone has to be held responsible. Regardless.