The plot literally revolves around making a female monster, as the titular Bride, for the existing male monster. You’re stretching really hard to make mentioning sex in this context as sexist. Sex is plot relevant in this movie, again, called “The Bride”, and they didn’t say it was uninteresting because it was a female lead character. They mentioned many details that left them uninterested and none of it hinged on sexism. Chill out.
Not about the movie, not about even the person’s criticism as a whole, but the phrasing. “besides making a female Frankenstein’s monster”. Say that it’s called “Frankenstein’s Brother”. The phrasing “…making an alternate male Frankenstein’s monster” is weird. It would sound better that it is “besides making Frankenstein’s brother/uncle/bride”. I get what the commenter was saying, but the wording made it sexist.
We all need to be conscious that how we address woman-led movies because how we talk about them drives if studios make women-led movies. If a male-led blockbuster flops, we don’t say “the male-led movie failed”. We say it was a shit movie and that it failed. If a female-led move flops, we always call out that it was female led. That becomes in the eyes of hollywood “since it was female-led it flopped”. So, I think it’s important to call out that a movie can be perfectly shit regardless of what gender led the film.
Now replace female with male.
Female has nothing to do with it, and making your argument about the female lead makes the entire take sexist.
We will be equal when we can say that a movie is just bad without also needing to mention that the lead was female.
The plot literally revolves around making a female monster, as the titular Bride, for the existing male monster. You’re stretching really hard to make mentioning sex in this context as sexist. Sex is plot relevant in this movie, again, called “The Bride”, and they didn’t say it was uninteresting because it was a female lead character. They mentioned many details that left them uninterested and none of it hinged on sexism. Chill out.
Not about the movie, not about even the person’s criticism as a whole, but the phrasing. “besides making a female Frankenstein’s monster”. Say that it’s called “Frankenstein’s Brother”. The phrasing “…making an alternate male Frankenstein’s monster” is weird. It would sound better that it is “besides making Frankenstein’s brother/uncle/bride”. I get what the commenter was saying, but the wording made it sexist.
We all need to be conscious that how we address woman-led movies because how we talk about them drives if studios make women-led movies. If a male-led blockbuster flops, we don’t say “the male-led movie failed”. We say it was a shit movie and that it failed. If a female-led move flops, we always call out that it was female led. That becomes in the eyes of hollywood “since it was female-led it flopped”. So, I think it’s important to call out that a movie can be perfectly shit regardless of what gender led the film.
People need to realise that most people don’t obsessively scour the feeds for the latest vocab guidelines.
What we choose to say have meanings, even if it wasn’t the intent.