Ah, yes. Iron Man 2, okay. If we are just talking about that, then I'd say you're right on the money. I haven't seen Cap 2 yet, but I hear mostly great things, for the movie itself and Black Widow, specifically.

Heh... The Cappening.

I think that given the underlying elements of Night of the Hunter, it makes sense that Superhero movies would come up in discussion, mostly because they're so prevalent right now. They're an almost weekly (it seems) example of gender politics in some way or another. They tend to evoke this kind of discussion and this movie further ties into that. In a way, Mitchum's character is a kind of Supervillain, using his status as a White Male to diminish and destroy any potential power to be found in Women and Children. That's part of what makes Mitchum's performance so chilling: Back then, this attitude was not only accepted as "right", it was encouraged. Men and Women were defined by it. Although the Women's Rights Movement happened decades ago, much of its results are just now being widely felt and implemented. For example, Strong Female Characters and Superhero Movies.

So, yeah, sure. I suppose we can talk about the acting and cinematography in Night of the Hunter, but what then? That's all on-the-screen, surface stuff that while amazing, doesn't really tackle what the film is about and why it exists in the first place. Moody lighting is all well and good but let's have a rich discussion about the actual film. Isn't that much more fruitful?

I feel like that's a "bring your own concrete" excuse to the movie being so broken. For an explanation as to why this is generally considered to be not good and how if accepted, it could start movies on a slippery slope, revisit WAYDM's Prometheus commentary.

Isn't that part of Adam's point though, that Hollywood DOES take chances on some female directors every so often? In addition to his list of working, female film makers, he also talks extensively about women like Kathryn Bigelow, who have made high-profile/high-cost projects, all with varying degrees of success (he forgot about Karyn Kusama, director of Girlfight, Aeon Flux and Jennifer's Body). He also brings up the possibility that some of these women aren't doing big, mainstream films simply because they CHOOSE NOT TO. They may not be interested in telling those kinds of stories.

I think his main argument is that he feels Lexi Alexander's soccer analogy is self-defeating, when she sees herself as a victim of an unfair system. She's using the soccer analogy to imply that she has what it takes but no one will pick her to prove it, because she's a woman. Adam is using the soccer analogy against her to imply that people aren't necessarily being chosen because they have slick moves or cunning strategies, but because they win games (meaning, they turn a profit for the studio) and in some cases, they continue to be invited to play because they ARE talented athletes. He's also using it against her in the sense that she's not being picked regularly because they put her in a game and she botched it up so royally, they're hesitant to do it again.

If we are to go with Adam's assumption of Lexi Alexander and her talent, my advice to her would be, "Stop being a baby and just go out and get what you want, instead of complaining that no one will give you what you want. Get off the internet and go make movies. Do what some of these other, more successful women have done: Make some low-budget films that not only showcase your artistic talents but also show the big studios that you can stretch a dollar like no one else because that's the first thing they're going to notice, especially since these are numbers guys, not artists. Go out and make things happen for yourself, instead o waiting for things to happen to you. If you don't think the men will care, play to the women who are in power because they do exist. If you're as good as you believe yourself to be, then someone WILL take notice and put you on that big, mainstream project you so desperately want. It's only a matter of time."

Actually, some have mentioned on more than one occasion, you kind of look like Joss Whedon. So, there's that.

You win, Drew. I don't know what you win, but it's yours now.

Don't forget the John Hughes classic, Pretty In Pink (which he would then change roles with a year later on the arguably better, Some Kind of Wonderful).

It's often said there are but a small number of basic story concepts. It's what you do with them and how you execute them that's important and usually where originality comes in.

Baz Luhrmann has basically been making the same movie for years but it's the small details within and how they're presented that makes each film unique from the others.

Besides, these are stories that have worked for literally centuries. That's why they keep telling them. James Cameron's Titanic is cliched and predictable to almost a sickening degree. The only truly special thing about it is of course, that it's set against the backdrop of a massive ship sinking into the ocean.

You know what else occurred to me the other day? Instead of going the hardware route, it might be beneficial to go the software route. as in a virtual mixer. From what Teague is suggesting, Audition can already be used as such, I've just never bothered messing with all of those other features. I usually just use it for editing.

Can anyone recommend a basic, 4-channel mixer? I looked at the one Teague uses but I don't need that many inputs.

I really love the design of the Rode NT1-A and the MXL 990. Looking at some reviews on YouTube, these kinds of microphones are superb at producing very warm audio. I can't really afford to get a mixer in addition to a microphone right now, so I'll probably just get a USB mic. Problem is, I don't want to get one that's just going to be obsolete when I do get a mixer. The Blue Yeti Pro has both USB and XLR connections. Are there other microphones out there that offer both, preferably with a design that's more like the Rode and MXL?

I can imagine, given how expensive it is. Too rich for my blood. Sure looks nice, though.