No. It's only been 30 hours. Jury deliberation is supposed to be just that, deliberation. They can't just give up. They are supposed to be back there discussing it. If the judge thinks more time will help, that's hardly coercion. It's their duty to reach a verdict.

lol Why would you tell such a lie?

Yes, that's why I said it.

Steven Speilberg knows and is passionate about white men going on archeological adventures? What does that have to do with having female leads?

Exactly!

Meh, it's just that there have been several woman-centered (and minority-centered, actually) movies recently that did really well at the box office, so I have a hard time believing that over 50 years there were so few that came across the desk of one of the best directors of all time and that with his name attached…

It does. You just disagree with it. You want to focus on the movies he did make, and you are unwilling to acknowledge that the decision of what movies to make in the first place is something to be considered as well.

Alright.

I'm not sure why you are using the word "should." No one said he should have cast any of his movies differently. He could have. I'm not a film historian so I don't know. I see no reason Indiana Jones couldn't have been a woman? The little boy in ET. Whatever. But, as I said, he also could have chosen different…

And that's true, I wouldn't feel comfortable saying that he has. That is not an assumption that he hasn't. I don't make assumptions about what's going in the heads of people I don't know.

No, I don't flip flop on viewpoints. If you read what I actually said, you will see that. Excluding minorities and women in certain contexts is an actual legal grounds for sex or racial discrimination in a court of law. That is true. That has nothing to do with a story about a kid robot. Not including a woman…

"But I don't think just wanting to make a film with female leads is enough to mean the film will be of good quality."

"You're saying we as the audience should be able to talk shit about somebody's art because…"

Did anyone assume that he wouldn't spend time in that sort of self-examination?

It does answer your question, totally. If you don't understand the answer, you can simply say you don't understand it and I would have been happy to explain. Just ignoring it was lame.

I don't mean to be reductive, but I think that you might be making it sound harder than it is. There's nothing super weird and mysterious about women such that it takes a special director to make a movie about them. A talented director, should be able to make a good movie out of a quality script. And I stand by my…

I don't know. But I've also never met Steven Speilberg and wouldn't feel comfortable saying what he has and hasn't thought about. It's just an interesting assumption to make about someone you don't know.

Here I'll try again:

Who am I? I'm me. A person with eyes who has seen many of his films. I didn't say "therefore he's being sexist." I didn't say that at all.

I don't know, all the director has to do is find the right script, right? A director wouldn't want to correct this imbalance in such a robust way if he or she didn't already have a sensitivity or passion for female empowerment, so I doubt it would be insurmountably difficult.