ITT: characters that would never be allowed today

He was protested then and his character is explicitly not trans

>>84900106

He'd be trans by the very definition of trans as it is today. Way back in the eighties and ninties, you were required to prove you had gender dysphoria before they allowed you to mutilate your body.

This is no longer the case today.

>>84900017
This is my favorite feminist film. It doesn't go for the obvious "I AM WOMAN HEAR ME ROAR" or portray men as unnecessarily sexist.

Clarice encounters institutionalized sexism in her role as an FBI agent, but it's not in the spotlight: it's just something she has to deal with. She's not portrayed as some kind of super agent, she's just a normal woman trying to do her best in a male dominated field...and she succeeds.

Compare to the "feminist" films of today in which the female characters are infallible, and the male characters parodies of workplace sexism.

>>84900959
This.

There is nothing wrong with having a female protagonist like Clarice Sterling, but when the protagonist is a forced-upon-Mary-Sue, THAT'S when people get pissed.

>WOULD YOU FUCK ME??
>I'D FUCK ME
>I'D FUCK ME HAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRD

goooooooodbye horrrrrsseeeeesssss

>>84900186
Hating yourself is still, specifically, not trans.

>>84900959
Best post of the night

>>84900017
I don't get it, he was a core part of the movie, he'd have to be included. And today, why wouldn't they want a movie with a trans character, how hard would it be for them to alter the script to dig out the tranny that was completely crept out by him, turned in a full character and made part of the main plot?

How many of those past relations of his were there in that story anyway?

>>84900959
Yeah she is one of the great female protagonists for sure.
Are there any good modern movies with some "mature" tones like Silence of the Lambs? It's such a masterpiece.

Or, do they just don't make em like they used to?

File: sotl.png (234KB, 522x424px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 522x424px

CLARICE

>>84900959
Funny how a movie that wasn't actively trying to be feminist is better than most feminist films today.

>>84900959
SHE JUST HAD TO FUCKING CHECK THE FUCKING CORNER

>>84903075
>Or, do they just don't make em like they used to?
Nope, they do not.

>>84903075
Thrillers just aren't made as often anymore and thus harder to actually hit. Take a quick peek at which genres have been consistently made this decade. As blockbuster season creeps to having almost 1 movie a month, it's harder to just have a mid-size movie plopped somewhere. People making movies are either sticking to formula or trying to be "smart" by subverting it. Few people actually want to make a good movie. And those that do can get their shit funded for TV.

Great, great film. I think at the core of it, the movie was about the love between a teacher (Hannibal) and the pupil (Clarice). Hannibal in his direct, extremely logical manner reminds me of my old chemistry teacher, one of the few who gave more of a damn about teaching students instead of training them to get good grades.

>>84903075
If they made a movie with a character like Clarice modern feminist audiences would decry it because it doesn't pass the Bechdel test, as well as depicting institutionalized sexism - regardless that it exists, but depicting it just reinforces it as natural!! - add to the fact the movie doesn't end with a payoff of her toppling the patriarchy in some way, such as contriving a reason for her to have gotten her boss fired and the replacement conveniently being a woman.

>>84903075
>Are there any good modern movies with some "mature" tones like Silence of the Lambs?
Prisoners (2013) comes pretty close imo.

>>84903548
No that's a shit pick

File: 1408210460341.jpg (1MB, 4096x1728px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4096x1728px

>>84900017
who cares

childhood is when you idolize silence of the lambs, red dragon and hannibal
adulthood is when you realize Manhunter made more sense and Brian Cox is much better Hannibal.

>>84903183
Didn't Jack Crawford's actor almost retire because they made him listen to a tape of a woman being raped and tortured?

>>84903590
Cox is definitely the best imo because he's not trying to be as off putting as possible like Hopkins was and seems more like he wants to help but sets Will on edge because of that cologne bottle question.

>>84901811

Except the content of the post is actually wrong as it relates to what is actually depicted in the film. We just treat the film with kid gloves both because it's genuinely good and also because it was an all-around success.

the film DOES very obviously drive at the young, driven woman who is determined to succeed in a male-dominated world. That Starling approaches her task with aplomb does not mitigate this basic second-wave feminist trope. Within the first twenty minutes, the doctor-jailor propositions her, she has semen flung in her face, and an infamous murderer gets inside her head and badly berates her. Institutionalized sexism is so clearly on display in the film, that the above poster clearly does not know what he is talking about, and likewise you for offering your praise in the way that you did.

Admittedly, this treatment is preferable exactly because it is not so "SJW", or heavy-handed. At this point I am more conciliatory to the latter half of hte above post >>84900959 , but its first half is still clearly wrong, up and down.

>>84903585
As long as he's getting paid, nigga. He knows at the end of the day it's all about getting paid, as long as it's not him being in that mentally ill mindset or his children.

File: 1498971182739.jpg (92KB, 1920x1040px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1920x1040px

He literally did nothing wrong.

File: buffalobill.jpg (46KB, 639x342px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 639x342px

*dances and tucks in your path*

>>84903764
I re-read your post like 4 times and all i could see was you saying what the other guy said in a shittier way, somehow trying to refute his point with the exact same point.

>>84900017
These days they'd make him captain of the San Franciso PD.

>>84903585
>>84903772
wtf are you talking about

>>84900017
T-Bag

>>84904158
This had an interesting set up, but the conclusion is pretty icky.