I am a filmmaker based in Atlanta, Ga.
I'm not so sure it's a bad thing (at least, not from an economic standpoint). It feels very much like the gym membership model. The membership is cheap enough that it will attract a lot of users but it's also at a price point where I don't necessarily feel guilty if I end up not using it in a given month. I think there will be a lot of users who will buy into it but don't take full advantage of the membership and may even pay for some months where they don't use it at all. Sure some people will use it to the fullest but even for us movie buffs, I can only think of 3 or 4 films I would've wanted to see in the theater this month. It's not just the money, it's the amount of time I have to commit to going to the theater (when I'm already busy with work and family). Younger users won't have an issue with that but adults with busy jobs, spouses and kids might find it more challenging to get into a theater more than once in a month. So I think if they can reach a point of mass adoption the economics will work out. As to the question of MoviePass' influence on the movie theater business going forward, that's a whole separate issue.
I agree it can be overused sometimes although I also wouldn't advocate for getting rid of it either just to appease an audience. I think it's about making the dialogue authentic to the situation and to the character who's saying it. If it doesn't feel real, the audience will be even more offended than if it feels right for the moment.
I wonder if Vimeo is considering a buy out of Wipster. The two systems are already integrated. This could be their way of seeing if sales of Vimeo Pro / Business improve by having the review service integrated.
As someone who taught martial arts for several years, I can tell you that (1) yes, that's an effective move for someone who is small and light going against someone larger and (2) a lot of moves in martial arts, especially in wrestling, can appear sexual when taken out of context. I've seen smaller women fight and most times they do make use of their hips and legs for grappling because those are the strongest parts of their body (albeit, much less elegantly than in these examples). Men are typically heavier and have stronger muscles above the waste so you'll see them do more punching and grappling with their arms. But I've seen smaller men make use of this move as well.
That being said, some of the examples in the video were spot on, like the example from Goldmember where the woman suffocates a man by squeezing him to death between her legs while laughing maniacally. Or the example from Mission Impossible where she uses much more energy than necessary to disarm a single guard. Both are just silly to watch. A lot of the examples here were just highly stylized versions of actual fighting moves but it's fair to say sometimes those moves are used in a way that's obviously playing up the character's sexuality.
I think it's probably less helpful to draw lines in the sand, since that only serves to stifle creativity, and more helpful to talk about when it might be appropriate to use a character's fighting style to play up their sexuality vs when it isn't. Personally, I can only think of a very few instances where we'd want to sexualize a character through combat. If we're doing that, then it should be to say something specific about the relationship between the character and the person they're fighting ("Mr and Mrs Smith" comes to mind) - not just as a way of making them seem more interesting. Female characters should have more dimension to them than just how sexual they are.
Exactly. Check out the previous post on "Reinterpreting 'The Karate Kid'". Manipulation is part of the game if you're trying to evoke an emotion from your audience.
Bottom line, it's just about maintaining a consistent "language" and making everything super clear to understand. Upside down slate will always mean tail slate. Everyone who's worked on set or in post knows that. It's not hard to misinterpret (unless you have no experience). Anything different might be unclear.