Follow TV Tropes

Following

Ruby Sparks

Go To

joeyjojo Happy New Year! from South Sydney: go the bunnies! Since: Jan, 2001
Happy New Year!
#1: Aug 27th 2012 at 2:30:03 AM

Stranger Than Fiction indeed.

Now I like Zooey Deschanel, but the is something more then a little sad than she agreed to play the literal role of a writer's wish fulfillment.

I don't know about any one else but I find the laser like pandering to her nerd male fan base rather disheartening. You're a better actress then this Zooeysad

edited 27th Aug '12 2:39:22 AM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid
GeekCodeRed Did you know this section has a character limit? from A, A, B, B, A Since: Sep, 2010 Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Did you know this section has a character limit?
#2: Aug 27th 2012 at 5:32:33 AM

Dude, the trailer says it's Zoe Kazan, not Zooey Deschanel. tongue

edited 27th Aug '12 5:33:15 AM by GeekCodeRed

They do have medals for almost, and they're called silver!
Nicknacks Ding-ding! Going down... from Land Down Under Since: Oct, 2010
Ding-ding! Going down...
#3: Aug 27th 2012 at 5:33:23 AM

Yeah, it's Kazan, who also scripted. Supremely creepy concept, which that trailer's tone doesn't really hit — outside the accidental freeze frame there.

Also, I thought the ending was a bit weak.

edited 27th Aug '12 5:35:38 AM by Nicknacks

This post has been powered by avenging fury and a balanced diet.
joeyjojo Happy New Year! from South Sydney: go the bunnies! Since: Jan, 2001
Happy New Year!
#4: Aug 27th 2012 at 3:01:36 PM

Yeah, it's Kazan, who also scripted

That makes all the worst sad

hashtagsarestupid
disruptorfe404 Since: Sep, 2011
#5: Aug 27th 2012 at 3:07:08 PM

She also doesn't look all that similar to Zooey Deschanel.

joeyjojo Happy New Year! from South Sydney: go the bunnies! Since: Jan, 2001
Happy New Year!
#6: Aug 27th 2012 at 3:19:20 PM

Regardless of the actress. It's a pretty creepy and sexist premise for a movie. I have to adgree with Natalie Audley on this one.

The tragic and more importantly sexist part, is that the writer can control his creation. He writes that ‘his character’ can speak French and suddenly his lover is sprouting French. Basically he can control, maintain, write out the elements doesn’t like. Which is so twisted. As bad as this is, the guy is thrilled, absolutely delighted with his ‘creation’ – a person who only has the choices and characteristics that he has given her. He has limited her, and is pleased to be able to do so. Ick.

edited 27th Aug '12 3:21:25 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid
disruptorfe404 Since: Sep, 2011
#7: Aug 27th 2012 at 5:04:21 PM

Have you watched the movie? I haven't, but I was (and still am) under the impression that it isn't about gratification and is meant to be played for creepiness.

EDIT: Or rather, that it's about very creepy gratification.

edited 27th Aug '12 5:04:57 PM by disruptorfe404

Schitzo HIGH IMPACT SEXUAL VIOLENCE from Akumajou Dracula Since: May, 2009 Relationship Status: LA Woman, you're my woman
HIGH IMPACT SEXUAL VIOLENCE
#8: Aug 27th 2012 at 11:06:40 PM

Interested, for some odd reason.

ALL CREATURE WILL DIE AND ALL THE THINGS WILL BE BROKEN. THAT'S THE LAW OF SAMURAI.
DoctorDiabolical So pure. Since: Mar, 2010
So pure.
#9: Aug 28th 2012 at 12:53:22 AM

The premise reminds me of "A World of his Own" off of The Twilight Zone, which was handled very humorously :P .

joeyjojo Happy New Year! from South Sydney: go the bunnies! Since: Jan, 2001
Happy New Year!
#10: Sep 1st 2012 at 1:07:19 AM

[up][up][up]It hasn't got a major release here yet. I certainly hope so but. Zoe Kazen would have to be a poor quality writer (and a total failure as a woman) if she saw nothing distastefull with the story's premise.

Don't spoil it for me, but is there some sort of plot twist where terrorists steal the writer's magic typewriter and use Ruby as the perfect assassin?

hashtagsarestupid
Prowler I'm here for our date, Rose! Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me
I'm here for our date, Rose!
#11: Sep 1st 2012 at 1:25:24 AM

I'm just bemused by the fact that Kazan could be mistaken for Zooey Deschanel, or that the latter could be better than this after appearing in The Happening and Your Highness. Many lulz.

joeyjojo Happy New Year! from South Sydney: go the bunnies! Since: Jan, 2001
Happy New Year!
#12: Sep 1st 2012 at 1:49:58 AM

What? They are both actresses who play Manic Pixie Dream Girl and who's names start with Z. What more do you want?

They might as well be twins.tongue

edited 6th Jan '13 8:19:52 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid
disruptorfe404 Since: Sep, 2011
#13: Sep 3rd 2012 at 3:07:10 PM

All I know, I learned from Wikipedia.

(I'm talking about this movie, but that statement is very likely more applicable to more things than I care to admit)

joeyjojo Happy New Year! from South Sydney: go the bunnies! Since: Jan, 2001
Happy New Year!
#14: Sep 3rd 2012 at 3:46:23 PM

Speaking of Wikipedia, in Miss Kazan defense she does try to address the criticisms of the manic pixie dream girl trope, but she fails to come up with a logically consistent counter argument IMHO. 

Do you think of Ruby as a manic pixie dream girl? [Makes a face.] What? What do you think of that term? Well, I am not a fan. Look, I don’t think of her as that; I hope other people don’t think of her as that. I think if they do they’re misunderstanding the movie. That term is a term that was invented by a blogger, and I think it’s more of a term that applies in critical use than it does in creative use. It’s a way of describing female characters that’s reductive and diminutive, and I think basically misogynist. I’m not saying that some of those characters that have been referred to as that don’t deserve it; I think sometimes filmmakers have not used their imagination in imbuing their female characters with real life. You know, they’ve let music tastes be a signifier of personality. But I just think the term really means nothing; it’s just a way of reducing people’s individuality down to a type, and I think that’s always a bad thing. And I think that’s part of what the movie is about, how dangerous it is to reduce a person down to an idea of a person.

Well, yeah, there's a line in the movie that basically questions the idea of manic pixie dream girls: “The quirky, messy women whose problems make them appealing are not real." Sure. What bothers me about it is I think that women get described that way, but it's really reflective of the man who is looking at them, and the way that they think about that girl. Not about who that girl really is or what her personality actually is. I think that to lump together all individual, original quirky women under that rubric is to erase all difference. Like, I’ve read pieces that describe Annie Hall as a manic pixie dream girl. Katharine Hepburn in Bringing Up Baby. To me, those are fully fledged characters that are being played by really smart actresses. I just think it’s misogynist. I don’t want that term to survive. I want it to die.[12]

edited 3rd Sep '12 3:47:59 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid
joeyjojo Happy New Year! from South Sydney: go the bunnies! Since: Jan, 2001
Happy New Year!
#16: Sep 8th 2012 at 3:50:50 PM

[up][lol]

Anyway it's pretty safe to say that Ruby Sparks despite the authoresses best intentions fills the Manic Pixie Dream Girl check list to a T. Although unlike whats-her-name at the Feminist Frequency I don't think there is anything sexist per say in the heroine as the hero muse archetype,

edited 8th Sep '12 3:58:08 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid
Add Post

Total posts: 16
Top