[Webcomic] Webcomic Appreciation Jamboree

figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
"Okay... I guess"

Having seen pics of what Florence Pugh chooses to wear off-screen, it seems likely her consent to show her tits on screen was a little more enthusiastic.
 
Celt Z

Celt Z

GasBandit said:
View attachment 45928
Click to expand...
This feels like 4 bad takes. It's still the director and the studio that makes these decisions happen, and if there's anything the whole Weinstein shit has taught us, no matter how famous they are, actresses rarely get a say in these things, for fear of being blackballed and losing their careers. This is basically Seth MacFarlane's "We Saw Your Tits" levels of intelligent discourse. Or are we back to , "The (ex)president said this kind of 'locker room talk' is acceptible, so we're going to keep doing it"?.
 
ScytheRexx

ScytheRexx

Not sure if anyone still reads it, but LFG just ended today. Each new page felt like it was pushing the plot at absolutely break neck speed, so I looked through the news areas and found out they announced a few weeks ago the comic was cancelled and would close out before the end of August. Took me a bit by surprise.
 
Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

figmentPez said:
"Okay... I guess"

Having seen pics of what Florence Pugh chooses to wear off-screen, it seems likely her consent to show her tits on screen was a little more enthusiastic.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, no, we can't infer that. I would hope that Nolan and everyone else involved are among the "good ones" but corruption and abuse runs so deep in Hollywood that it's often more accurate to assume the worst. Maybe the actress was perfectly fine with it, but we can't know that just because she's been free with her body and image in the past. If anything, that's more likely to draw the attention of abusers that want to use that.

So just because an actress freely shows herself off screen doesn't mean she can't be abused. This sort of thinking is a part of the patriarchy and planted into the mind of the masses by those in power, aka the abusers. It's the same line of logic of "oh she must have consented because look at how she was dressed."

And to be clear, I'm not accusing you, Pez, of thinking like that. I'm saying that thought is the type seeded into the popular subconscious and should be scrutinized.
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
Ravenpoe said:
Unfortunately, no, we can't infer that. I would hope that Nolan and everyone else involved are among the "good ones" but corruption and abuse runs so deep in Hollywood that it's often more accurate to assume the worst. Maybe the actress was perfectly fine with it, but we can't know that just because she's been free with her body and image in the past. If anything, that's more likely to draw the attention of abusers that want to use that.

So just because an actress freely shows herself off screen doesn't mean she can't be abused. This sort of thinking is a part of the patriarchy and planted into the mind of the masses by those in power, aka the abusers. It's the same line of logic of "oh she must have consented because look at how she was dressed."

And to be clear, I'm not accusing you, Pez, of thinking like that. I'm saying that thought is the type seeded into the popular subconscious and should be scrutinized.
Click to expand...
While you raise some good points, if we want women to be able to say "no" we must also allow them to say "yes". Assuming that Pugh doesn't want to do nudity and was coerced is just as much of a reach as assuming that she was enthusiastic. I'll admit that my criticism was poorly worded, it implied too heavily that we can know Pugh's state of mind, and I'll try to do better in the future, but I was trying to point out that the comic is making a spurious assumption that she was reluctant, based solely on the fact that she is a woman.

Absent of evidence, we shouldn't assume either way. Pugh may be for or against doing sex scenes, I don't know, and I can't find any comments from her on the subject. No matter how common it is for women to be coerced into doing nudity for movies, assuming that every woman is a victim, absent of evidence, is a harmful stance to take. Not as harmful as assuming that abuse never happens, but it's still robbing them of agency, and a symptom of the same problem.

The whole comic is a mess, and makes a bunch of unfounded assumptions and logical fallacies.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Half or more of those are now defunct or ended. I do miss me some Fanboys though. Sylvia's zipper just kept getting bigger and bigger
 
Celt Z

Celt Z

CRFH was one of those comics that I really thought I was going to love, and the longer I read it, the more I realized I hated every main character. There was no one to root for, they were all assholes, and once I realized I didn't care what happened to any of them, I just gave up. I haven't heard it mentioned in YEARS, so I assumed it had ended at some point.
 
Yoshimickster

Yoshimickster

Celt Z said:
CRFH was one of those comics that I really thought I was going to love, and the longer I read it, the more I realized I hated every main character. There was no one to root for, they were all assholes, and once I realized I didn't care what happened to any of them, I just gave up. I haven't heard it mentioned in YEARS, so I assumed it had ended at some point.
Click to expand...
Yeah I stopped reading for like, the EXACT same reason, and just randomly thought of it today to see it's on a weekly schedule.
 
Yoshimickster

Yoshimickster

Geeze, Dumbiverse Walky is radiating massive Scott Pilgrim energy these days...actually all the days, in a good way, but still in a way that watching the horror unfold still feels torturous to behold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top