TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

76

The Gender-Bending of Male Stories (self.PurplePillDebate)

submitted by IcyHotRoad

Not sure if this has ever been brought up before, but I noticed something about the new Captain Marvel that no one, and I mean no one seems to have noticed; Captain Marvel, Ghostbusters, Ocean's 8, etc...aren't really supposed to be what Feminism aim for.

Feminists have complained for decades, for instance, that women in novels only exist in relation to men (wives, girlfriends, mothers, etc.) While in contemporary Feminism films that everyone seems to be glorifying them for is in fact following this exact same system, but no one seems to have noticed this. These all female-casts and switches of originally male characters too exist in relation to men and not on their own merits. The all female-cast of traditionally male stories like Ghostbusters is following the exact same system as before. A "female Van Helsing" is just that, a Van Helsing with a vagina. That's all she's known for.

All these female casts of already made stories and talks of a female James Bond are actually just reinforcing the idea that women exist in relation to men. These aren't actually genuine characters and exist solely in relation to men. Instead of creating original successful icons: Clarice Starling (Silence of the Lambs), Ripley (Alien franchise), and Buffy (The Vampire Slayer), they push to create characters that are just the female version of (and in relation to) men.

This "Feminist" system in recent years in media is following the exact same system as before.


[–]CainPrice53 points54 points  (75 children) | Copy Link

It's been a funny time for Hollywood.

Ripley kicked ass and took names. She was a super-strong female protagonist that both men and women liked. More men than women, actually, mostly due to the genre of the movie. And she was liked and admired, mostly by men, for her badassery, not for being some hot chick in skimpy clothing. And the problems she faced weren't due to being a women and men not taking her seriously. The fact that she was a woman in a man's world wasn't the issue she was overcoming. She was a woman placed in a serious situation where she kicked ass and overcame it, without cramming the fact that she's a woman down the viewer's throats.

Today, the script is different. Today, writers take something that was already written and replace the main characters, who were previously male, with women. And a significant portion of the problems the now-female main characters face stem from being women and not being taken seriously as women. The entire point of the movie isn't to tell an interesting story with a strong and interesting main character who happens to be female. It's to virtue-signal and demonstrate the creator's feminist liberal agenda. "Look at me! I re-made this male movie with female main characters! I'm so open-minded! Praise me!" Instead of having a good plot, good acting, and so on, the entire point of the movie is to take a plot we already know and make the characters women. The fact that they're women is the point of the movie. Not the story or the acting or the special effects. The women are the point of the movie.

[–]planejaneRemove head from sphincter, THEN type.15 points16 points  (47 children) | Copy Link

It's really a shame the new Star Wars movies are kinda mediocre; there's certainly been a lot of amazing female Jedis and heros in the larger lore of the books and there could've been a lot of potential to tell an amazing story with a protagonist who was original and compelling as well as female-not because she was female. Sadly the whole thing has been kinda haphazard and flawed, although it's certainly not due to the acting ability of some really killer stars.

Another good example would be GOT, which also pretty much stunk as far as writing goes towards the end-but there's been some excellent moments with the female characters over the years, and the source material really was excellent at fleshing out interesting, 3D female stories.

[–]CainPrice14 points15 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Definitely. For some reason, Hollywood forgot that just because you put women in a movie doesn't mean that the movie has to suck and be patronizing and pandering. There used to be good movies that starred women.

In fact, Hollywood forgot that 99% of people aren't woman-haters. They used to just make decent movies with women in them and people would enjoy them. But now they have to remake good movies into shitty movies that feature women and use the script to preach to us, as they combat this non-existent issue about how people are allegedly sexist about their movie preferences.

[–]planejaneRemove head from sphincter, THEN type.5 points6 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Vocal minority, as usual. There certainly was some blowback about a female protagonist in Star Wars, and Capitan Marvel got both hate and love just for being a woman. But you're right, 9/10 people give no shits.

I do wish there was a bit more love for female action films in general though-Atomic Blonde was a really fun chaotic ride. Charlize Theron and Keanu Reeves trained together while he was preparing for one of the John Wick movies and had a lot of glowing things to say about her, and the movie has its flaws but the action scenes are 110% adrenaline shocks. I never thought I'd enjoy seeing a woman get absolutely destroyed and keep fighting like that; there's not a moment I thought the guys pulled their punches or they over-indulged on her ability to fight back.

The Spy Who Dumped Me was another surprising gem with a really delicious blend of slapstick and action that deserved a lot more publicity and love than it got.

I don't know how much of it is due to marketing and publicity and how much is due to "sexist" movie interest, but there's some decent female-led movies that are way more than just "chick flicks." That's actually the cause of an early disagreement I had with my partner-he assumed any movie with a woman as the main character was just a girl's-movie and he had no interest in it. After I put my foot down and made him watch Rogue One, and caught him trying not to chuckle at some good female-starring comedies, he's somewhat come around, but it wouldn't surprise me if his views are more common than I'd expect.

Edit: really? Downvoted? Children, I tell ya.

[–]Christian_Kong80% Natural Red2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I do wish there was a bit more love for female action films in general though-Atomic Blonde

That movie was such a let down. Me and a buddy who love John Wick went in hoping it would be a female John Wikish film and it was way to plot heavy. The action was mostly great but too limited and spaced out.

I think the action genre shrinking as much as it has and the continued general public thought of not wanting to see women get hit, irrationally not buying into a woman being able to fight off big dudes(Bill Burr does a bit on this comparing John Wick/Atomic Blonde) and the people who won't see a female driven action film just because they can't wrap their head around the idea of it being good, I do not see any female led action films doing any good until there comes another (non superhero)action boom in the industry.

[–]planejaneRemove head from sphincter, THEN type.1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

For sure. Although I have spent most of my early adult years drenched in Marvel and X-Men and 3 different Spidermen, I'm looking forward to the subsiding of comic book heros--or at least the big name ones. Some of the Indie adaptations have been amazing in their own right.

[–]planejaneRemove head from sphincter, THEN type.1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Although, I do have to say, I hate Bill Burr. He's just the male counterpart to the Michelle Wolfs of the world. His whole schtick is based on being edgy and pissing people (often women) off. I just don't think it takes a lot of talent to be politically incorrect and obnoxious.

There's a lot better male comedians who tell great jokes about the way women are and the way men are-Ron White is dry as hell but also a fucking riot and manages to be blunt about women as well as bringing more to the table.

[–]Whereitatson1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

. . .have you seen his stand up? There are very few jokes like the ones you've described. . .

[–]planejaneRemove head from sphincter, THEN type.-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I have, and I disagree.

[–]billybones110 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The concept of a female action movie somewhat fits OP's theme of just shoving women into men's roles. The whole concept of an action movie, of physical violence, is inherently male. When you see a woman kicking ass on screen it simply doesn't resonate with reality in the same way because that isn't a power capability that women have irl. This isn't to say that it should never be done and can't be done, just that it's not exploring female-ness in an intelligent way on screen.

Women, generally, do not, can not and never have dealt with their problems through physical violence IRL.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS7 points8 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

It's really a shame the new Star Wars movies are kinda mediocre

No. The prequel trilogy was kinda mediocre, the sequel trilogy (and particularly The Last Jedi) is a cinematic abomination. But because of its feminist credentials, everyone in the media pretends it was awesome and calls everyone who disagrees a woman-hating alt-right russian troll bot.

The comparison with GoT is pretty interesting, because now that the feminist role model Daenerys has undergone a rather vile character assassination towards the end, suddenly the whole thing is a lot more controversial.

[–]planejaneRemove head from sphincter, THEN type.1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I actually am of the reverse view on Daenerys, at least in the books. She spent a very long time just daydreaming about men instead of doing anything. I'd rather see a character assassination, although the last season was so hamfisted it was hard to watch.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I would call it "incredibly rushed". The problem isn't really Daenerys going off the deep end (although for those who complain about it on political grounds, it definitely is), the problem was that it almost came out of nowhere: the nasty stuff she did in season 7 was of similar nature as the stuff she did in season 1 was, but then practically out of the blue she does the fantasy equivalent of nuking New York because people didn't like her enough.

I can imagine that a skilled writer like GRRM can convincingly sell such a development, but what Benioff and Weiss did was peak lazy writing.

[–]planejaneRemove head from sphincter, THEN type.1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

My thoughts exactly.

[–]87AudreyHorne0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

She spent a very long time just daydreaming about men instead of doing anything.

The books have always shown us that part of her outward badass and arrogant attitude comes as a result of a lot of doubts, and she really is a little girl as well as everything else.

I love her character assassination but I think the execution missed on so many opportunities to add depth to the whole flip (same with Jon who also got assassinated). The direction of all stories could be so incredibly genius if some underlying factors were properly addressed, like this i have to conclude them myself, so I have the impression that the writers got GRRM's bulletpoints but didn't understand deeper connotations themselves.

[–]87AudreyHorne0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Why was the prequel so bad to you? for me it had disappointing elements (Finn), boring protagonist which is actually not a horrible thing always, but it also had a lot of good parts (Kylo's whole story including Luke)

For GOT, I think the direction of all stories is perfect but the show didn't write them out well. I am very curious for the books.

[–]WiseMonkeyGoodMonkey4 points5 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

shame the new Star Wars movies are kinda mediocre

The word you're looking for is atrocious. The Last Jedi was atrocious. I resent the time my ass was in a seat growing carbuncles. Basic themes, scripting, personalities and choreography. All actively bad. I've been a fan since I saw A New Hope in the theater as a kid. This broke it for me.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It felt like fan fiction of the worst sort.

[–]87AudreyHorne-1 points0 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Why do you think The Last Jedi was so bad, if you can give more detail?

[–]WiseMonkeyGoodMonkey2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Oh lord. How much time do you have? I'm going to say first off that probably nothing of what I'm about to say hasn't already been said by others. Probably many others. Also if I'm inaccurate here it's accidental. Not looking to start a proverbial holy war.

In no particular order:

  • The way that the lightsaber was treated. That scene where Luke just tosses it over his shoulder. For something on the order of 10,000 years whose importance within the franchise is captured best in the following quotes:

"This was the formal weapon of a Jedi Knight. Not as clumsy or random as a blaster. More skill than simple sight was required for its use. An elegant weapon. It was a symbol as well. Anyone can use a blaster or a fusioncutter—but to use a lightsaber well was a mark of someone a cut above the ordinary."

―Obi-Wan Kenobi

"Ideally, a Jedi took many months to construct a single perfect weapon that he or she would keep and use for a lifetime. Once you build it, the lightsaber will become your constant companion, your tool, and a ready means of defense."

―Luke Skywalker

"This weapon is your life."

―Obi-Wan Kenobi

The scene just kind of shits all over everything that got us to this point. In the movies, books, various tv shows, the fan fictions and all the games (KOTOR, SWTOR and etc) this was essential to being a Jedi. And he tosses it over his shoulder for a bit of dark comedic shock. The scene was cheap and unnecessary.

  • Pretty much everything involving Vice Admiral Holdo. From an exclusively tactical perspective nearly everything she did was the wrong thing to do. And the things that Poe did against orders were arguably significantly less bad. Not great mind you. Just less bad. And the Admiral attempts to quell doubt by saying, effectively, that there is a plan. Just continue to do these short sighted and self destructive things because the ultra pandering "strong woman" said to. Which leads into

  • Staying on the ship to jump through the enemy fleet destroying it in the process. The imbecilic act (as an attempt to justify the above) that even if it had been valid could easily have been handled by a service droid. And even then should never have been done. That one act breaks every single reason to fight in space. Massive enemy fleet at your door? Just jump your least desirable junker through it. Problem solved. Death Star coming? Take a small asteroid and put some engines and a navigational system on it and poof. Which also eliminates a need for a Death Star. Why spend kajillions of credits and probably several star systems worth of resources building such a thing when you can go out and find a medium sized asteroid and do the same. Literally no space battle ever in the Star Wars universe makes any sense now with this change to the way jumping to hyperspace works.

  • Princess Leia getting ejected out the side of the ship and into space. Never shown an ounce of ability or had any training (that I am aware of) and not only can she pull herself back into the ship but apparently force users can now ignore things like decompression or needing to, you know, breathe.

  • The choreography. I used to do martial arts so I'm more sensitive to this than most seem to be. But this was nightmarishly bad. From Spinny Death Stick Man to the scene later (can't find the video of it right now) where one of the red suits comes up behind Rei. You see in the approach he as 2 weapons. You see when he grabs her he has 2 weapons. At this point one of the hands with one of the weapons in it goes behind Rei to come out in front of her and when you see it again red suit only has one weapon. The 2nd one, which was at neck level and would have quite handily slit her throat just vanishes while it's behind her. And it's chock full of shit like this.

  • Lastly. Rei herself. I said this further down to someone else. They Steven Segal'd her. She's completely unbeatable and for no reason that ever gets explained. She's a street urchin that learns about the force one day. A week later she's fighting Kilo to a standstill. A guy - and lets be fair - that has been trained extensively. Been romping about killing folks with force ability for years. And a guy that can catch freaking laser beams with is mind. Not only does she do that, but she's the one that has to save his bacon in the throne room scene. She can fly the Falcon better than Han can. Knows how to weapons she's probably only heard about in stories with better than professional ability and more. All without even an 80s montage scene. She's completely unrealatable as a character and by herself would have broken my disbelief. Heros are supposed to be real people with real foibles and weaknesses that they overcome through trial and fire - which we're supposed to see at least part of as a significant part of the story. Rei has none of this.

This guy is a good watch. He says more than I have space (or time) to say here and probably says most of it better. Me? I am done for as long as Disney owns the franchise.

Edit: Grammar and unctuation fixes

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The scene just kind of shits all over everything that got us to this point.

The entire scene was Rian Johnson with his stupid boner for "subverting expectations" setting the tone for the entire movie.

Viewers of TFA expected Luke being the wise Obi Wan-like figure who would take the lightsaber from Rey and then start training her in the ways of the Jedi and help her fight against the First Order. Rian Johnson thought "nah, fuck that", and in order to really drive that point home, he made him throw away the lightsaber.

In fact, the entire setup is even much worse than this. Originally, JJ Abrams intended to have Luke sitting on that island which a bunch of floating rocks around him, and Rian Johnson asked him to change that last shot (because Rian Johnson wanted to have a Luke who isn't Force-sensitive anymore). But we still have Luke standing there in Jedi robes, with a sad look on his face, as Rey approaches him at the end of TFA... only to throw away the lightsaber, tell her to GTFO, and immediately change from his Jedi apparel to his hobo clothes. I.e. the guy basically cosplayed as a Jedi in order troll people who visited the island.

To that I have to add that the "unhelpful Luke" makes sense at least in one regard - when he asks Rey "what do you expect, should I take down the entire First Order just by myself?" that's actually a damn good question. The problem is just that Rian Johnson was so in love with that single idea (and probably with the whole "cut himself off the Force"-idea he stole from KOTOR 2, a game he reportedly liked a lot - probably because it broke with Star Wars conventions as well) that he didn't really waste much time thinking about how to implement that angle into the overall story in a way that it made sense.

Luke standing there in Jedi robes didn't make sense, Luke having wanted to murder Kylo in his sleep didn't make sense, Luke having left a map that showed where he might be found didn't make sense, Luke not lifting a single finger to help the Republic against the FO didn't make sense. RJ just knew one thing: people wanted a powerful wise Jedi Master Luke, and he wanted to not give them that, and everything else had to take a backseat to this.

[–]WiseMonkeyGoodMonkey0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

TIL it's worse than even I thought. I hope his family disowns him over something he didn't do and no one figures it out till after he's dead...

[–]87AudreyHorne-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Good video, I agree with a lot of things, and then there were even some things i didn't realize originally that now I agree with.

I don't agree with Kylo being inconsistent and unrelatable, I thought he was one of the best things about the movies and the only interesting character. I think the person making the video misses the point about two things:

  1. No back story for snoke and his death - this was on purpose, this whole moment was a thing where the movies broke off from being just a copy of the old series and took a new direction. I thought it was a good choice.

  2. Rey's background being irrelevant - the issue with Rey is everything both of you mentioned, but the choice to make her background meaningless was not a bad one, that was kind of the point and also goes to show the new direction. Unfortunately since she is such a bad character, this doesn't end up being very effective like it could have been if she was less good at everything

[–]WiseMonkeyGoodMonkey1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't agree with Kylo being inconsistent and unrelatable,

I don't agree with everything he's got to say wither. Rei was the one that was, imo, un-relatable. Other than Kilos overly emo look/vibe I didn't really have issue with him. There were holes, but in a good movie they would have been eventually filled in. Even if just in part. He was, however, pretty inconsistent. Like the writers could not decide if he was going to be a wounded sensitive anti-hero to be or a total father killing psychopath. They tried to dance the line and failed.

and also goes to show the new direction

New direction would have been fine. But you don't establish a new direction by shooting everything that was in the head. And if we're being completely real, there wasn't much new in it either. Look. Another Death Star (bigger and badder). Look. A total ripoff of the Hoth invasion. But it's salt this time wink-wink. Look. It's Vaders super star destroyer. It's just shaped a bit differently for no apparent tactical reason.

It was all not only bad - it was bad and spectacularly unimaginative. The only good thing I have to say about it is that it was visually stunning. Gorgeous even.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No back story for snoke and his death - this was on purpose, this whole moment was a thing where the movies broke off from being just a copy of the old series and took a new direction. I thought it was a good choice.

Nah, this was an idea Rian Johnson came up with, because that hack is obsessed with "subverting expectations", and "not giving viewers what they want" (he said that shit literally on camera). Which is fine and well if what you're doing is a cool twist and makes sense (like, say, making Darth Vader the father of Luke; or when the entire Stark war effort in Game of Thrones gets nullified during the Red Wedding - nobody expected either of these), but not if this means completely omitting a very relevant element of the story.

Like I've read in one post elsewhere: "characters with established positions don't really require explanation. We didn't need to know how Palpatine became the Emperor in Episode IV, nor did we need to know how Sauron became Dark Lord in LOTR. But if somebody came in practically out of nowhere immediately after the One Ring was destroyed, broke Aragorn's spirit, and annihiliated Gondor, we would want to know everything."

Rey's background being irrelevant - the issue with Rey is everything both of you mentioned, but the choice to make her background meaningless was not a bad one, that was kind of the point and also goes to show the new direction.

That was actually yet another terrible decision by Rian Johnson, and it shows that to him, "subverting expectations" was more important than actually writing a consistent story that respects the premises of the setting.

In TFA, Rey basically became a fully-fledged Jedi within days after discovering that she was Force-sensitive - in a setting where it has been made abundantly clear that you have to spend years honing these skills (and where it has been mandatory to start the training with toddlers).

However, what Rey pulled in TFA wasn't out of the ordinary for a fully trained Jedi yet, and her background was deliberately kept obscure - so before TLJ, there was still the possibility to give an adequate explanation for why someone who for all intents and purposes had been a muggle a week ago now was spotting some impressive Force user abilities. Stuff like her having been trained as a Jedi before, but then having been mind-wiped or something like this.

TLJ on the other doubled down on her OP-ness (making her single-handedly slaughter several weapon masters and giving her stronger Force user abilities than Yoda or Palpatine, who were arguably the most powerful Force adepts of their time) while simultaneously shutting the door to any possible explanation for it. She's nobody, as are her parents, and she just learned everything out of nowhere, case closed.

If that's "a new direction", and Rian Johnson's idea of good writing, Disney can go fuck itself.

The problem with Rey isn't just that she is a ridiculous marysueish power fantasy, which makes her story arc pretty boring after all, it's also that the way she's written violates every Star Wars convention of how these things work.

And these - Rey being a Mary Sue, Rey being de facto impossible in that setting, Snoke not having a background - are just three elements which piss me off about that movie; there are probably a dozen more I could name right at the top of my head.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

female Jedis

They should especially have nailed this one. I mean, Yoda is what, 2 feet tall? I think of The Force as a force multiplier and it's not incoherent to have powerful female Jedis.

[–]doctor_awfulChad ThunderDoc1 point2 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

I don't think Rey fits that bill - she isn't "fighting against the patriarchy" or anything of the sort.

[–]planejaneRemove head from sphincter, THEN type.3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Right, that's the idea. The intent is for her to be interesting and compelling as well as female, but not because she's female.

I don't think the movies quite accomplished this, but that's due to poor writing more than anything and reflective of the whole films rather than Rey herself.

[–]Aaren_AugustineWants a Cookie5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Since I write fiction, this is all very interesting to me. I watched a video of a professor who basically blamed this on nihilism. He said that lots of writers these days get a surface level what is going on and try to mimic movies, but can't capture the spirit of the films because they don't have personal direction or meaning for themselves. I think that's how Ryan Johnson failed so miserably. He had to put identity politics into The Last Jedi because he had no real understanding or identity to write these characters.

This is why you see the rise of "Fan fiction" because the new talent isn't. This also explains why Game of Thrones was phenomenal until they ran out of content from the author. They had nothing to fall back on. They had to be notorious because they didn't have the skill set to meet audiences expectations nor equal the authors skills. aka Subvert your expectations.

[–]87AudreyHorne0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

He said that lots of writers these days get a surface level what is going on and try to mimic movies, but can't capture the spirit of the films because they don't have personal direction or meaning for themselves.

This is a brilliant thought. I agree, many older classics are talking about some deep values which makes them so interesting and genuine. I don't mind nihilism when it's equally sincere, but like you said, superficial "meanings" with underlying nihilism just end up being shallow and boring, they have no substance or conviction.

He had to put identity politics into The Last Jedi because he had no real understanding or identity to write these characters.

I like the comparison with GOT, GRRM really believed in each individual character, he was interested in them. I think in many movies a character is first selected on this "identity" basis and is then written as a concept, like "what do we want to do with a female jedi", which is why they never come across right.

For Star Wars, I think the writer had most interest in Kylo so there is some substance to him. Finn was a tragic wasted opportunity. Old characters were just there so that this movie can sort of break from the past, and everyone else was flat.

[–]WiseMonkeyGoodMonkey1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The intent is for her to be interesting and compelling as well as female

She was neither. And she was completely unrelatable. They Steven Segal'd the character. Knows about the force for like a week (getting no actual training) and she can go toe to toe with a guy who can literally catch lasers with his fricken mind? And then in the big throne room fight has to save that guys bacon?

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Oooh, they definitely wanted to turn Disney Star Wars into a feminist franchise, and Rey is part of that strategy.

[–]doctor_awfulChad ThunderDoc-1 points0 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Yeah I don't see it.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

The woman who fits all Mary Sue-benchmarks and who is immediately awesome at everything and has to make a point that she doesn't need hand-holding from the black lead comic relief character (post-TLJ)? The one who flies the Millenium Falcon better than Han Solo and discovered the Force just 5 minutes ago and then proceeds to hand the asses to all the white men in the franchise, even when they have been trained in lightsaber combat and Force use for the better parts of their lives (Kylo Ren, Luke Skywalker)? Who, despite being a complete and utter Force newbie, lifted more metric tons than Yoda and Palpatine combined and thus single-handedly saved the Resistance/Rebellion? You don't see the feminism in this?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

who is immediately awesome at everything

Right? Not even a training montage. Again, even if the Force can bring a female up to male fighting abilities, at least show the freaking process. Give us some background as to how she discovered she's a prodigy and developed her abilities.

[–]doctor_awful 1 points [recovered]  (4 children) | Copy Link

Rey is a Mary Sue, yeah. So is nearly every protagonist in a series with the demo and scope of Star Wars. Harry Potter is a Mary Sue, Katniss Everdeen is a Mary Sue, the main character of Ready Player One, Percy Jackson, the main guy from Eragon, Jack Reacher in Mission Impossible, etc. If Luke didn't lose to Vader in Empire, he'd pretty much be a golden example of a Mary Sue too.

Rey's stuff is just following the hero's journey. She didn't hand Luke's anything to him (where do you even get this?), he was her mentor and had to save her at the end. She didn't hand Kylo's ass to him either - she tied him in a 2v1 after he got shot with a super-sized laser crossbow that sent other dudes flying.

Who, despite being a complete and utter Force newbie, lifted more metric tons than Yoda and Palpatine combined and thus single-handedly saved the Resistance/Rebellion?

Really, you're arguing that "after getting trained by Luke Skywalker, she moved some rocks out of the way" is this huge feat? There weren't even that many rocks lol

Stop playing the victim so much, sheesh

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Okay, you either didn't watch the movie or you don't have any idea whatsoever what a Mary Sue is, or both. Or you haven't watched any other Star Wars movie because otherwise you'd know that her "hero's journey" ignores the premises of the setting at every turn.

What makes her a Mary Sue?

  • she has instant mastery of everything, and does so better than the guys who supposedly have trained for decades (Han, Luke, Kylo, Yoda, Obi-Wan and basically everyone else except maybe one or two obscure characters from the Expanded Universe): Force use, lightsaber combat, starship piloting, heck, she even knows how to swim despite having grown up on a desert planet.
  • she is instantly well-liked by all the Resistance guys, Han practically immediately adopts her, Leia immediately likes her, Kylo is obsessed with her. Only Luke is grumpy towards her, and the movie makes it blindlingly obvious that he's in the wrong here; and Snoke tries to off her and pays for that with his life moments later.
  • she doesn't really have a single flaw except maybe being impulsive. Oh, and she is cheerfully naive and believes Kylo is still a nice guy. So basically her flaws are that she's hotheaded and kind-hearted. For a hero in fiction, that's kinda like claiming "I am ambitious and a perfectionist" as flaws during a job interview.
  • she's incorruptible and isn't even tempted by corruption.
  • she never loses a fight, the only one who is shown to be stronger than her is Snoke, who is essentially Palpatine 2.0

Jeez, why am I writing this, other people have already done that for me

Harry Potter is a Mary Sue

You mean the guy who is a runt, short-sighted, not actually that popular, only excels at Defense against the Dark Arts and broom riding and is worse than Hermione at everything else, and actually has to work for everything he achieves, also has to work years to fulfill his destiny, suffers various setbacks along the road, and has to die before he gets there? Sure, totes the same as Rey.

If Luke didn't lose to Vader in Empire, he'd pretty much be a golden example of a Mary Sue too.

You mean the guy who has to be saved by Obi-Wan in the cantina, then by Han in the Death Star trench, then by Han again on Hoth, then fails his test with Yoda, then lets himself be trapped like a moron by Vader, then tries to go 1on1 with a guy who is vastly superior to him and loses his hand in the process, and then after years of setbacks and failures and training, he finally manages to win against Darth Vader, and that only after having tapped into the dark side - only to get his handed by the Emperor immediately afterwards - you say that this is basically the same as Rey? Wow, just... wow.

Don't know much about Jack Reacher or Katniss Aberdeen since I haven't watched either movie or read either book, but considering that your other claims already don't hold any water whatsoever, I will assume that these characters also aren't even remotely as marysueish as Rey. From what I've heard about Eragon (haven't read that one either), that guy is indeed a Mary Sue, but it should tell you a lot that you're saying that the paragon of Disney Star Wars is about as well-written as a fictional character a 19 year old came up with.

So, no, your argument is invalid.

[–]MakeMoneyNotWar6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The famous line, "Do. Or do not. There is no try" is Yoda admonishing Luke for his failure and whining. You know from the scene that Luke is genuinely struggling. You don't have that with Rey.

[–]angels-fanCrooning over hellscapes2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

What a fucking epic breakdown of the differences between Rey and Luke.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, the sad part is that there are actually people who unironically think that Luke is "just as believable" as Rey.

[–]87AudreyHorne-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think Ray falls into another trap (everyone calls her Mary Sue for a reason), that female characters just become so perfect they are boring. She doesn't really have an interesting character aside from being good at things. Luke wasn't written like that.

But on the other hand I think for a movie like this, the protagonist should be the most boring character.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Another good example would be GOT, which also pretty much stunk as far as writing goes towards the end-but there's been some excellent moments with the female characters over the years

Oh, now that we're mentioning Game of Thrones - there was something else wrong with the remaining two seasons which I couldn't put my finger on, until I checked the old PPD thread from last year: the final season became in a way utterly predictable except where it actually counted.

[–]planejaneRemove head from sphincter, THEN type.0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Holy fuck that was like 90+% accurate, good on you!

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, but as I said - predictable except where it counted, namely the way the story ultimately turns out.

  • I would never have guessed that Arya kills the Night King
  • I would never have guessed that Bran becomes king
  • I would never have guessed that the Azor Ahai-story was just a red herring, or rather, more likely: became a non-factor because Benioff and Weiss were too lazy to build it into the story
  • I would have assumed that Jon killing Daenerys would be tied to said Azor Ahai-prophecy
  • I also didn't predict that Dany goes insane, though here I have to admit that this part makes most sense. I suspect it's also one of the very few elements they got from GRRM.

They gave basically everyone except Team Dany (who became a tyrant and died) and Team Jon (who did neither kill the NK nor did he become king) their dose of fanservice in the end, but instead of bringing the saga to a logical conclusion, they produced an incoherent mess.

[–]planejaneRemove head from sphincter, THEN type.1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I couldn't agree more.

[–]87AudreyHorne0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I loved everything about the outcome (except the Arya/Night King part which you can see right away won't be in the books), i am just amazed by how the writers seem completely oblivious of the context and connotations of each of these outcomes. They didn't properly explain why characters did what they did and what it means to the viewer, but I think when we get the book people will finally be able to see that this was completely genius.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I also didn't predict that Dany goes insane, though here I have to admit that this part makes most sense. I suspect it's also one of the very few elements they got from GRRM.

If you look at Dany's story arc, she gets where she is because she's a sentient halo effect and has dragons, smart people tell her beforehand that her actions are going to have consequences, she follows through with those actions despite the warning because she thinks she's in the moral right, she endures the consequences she was told about beforehand by lashing out and destroying things, and then because she's hot and has dragons she still retains enough power to go elsewhere and repeat the cycle again.

Dany turning "evil" at the end was just another example of what's been happening to her the entire time, only this time people hated it because instead of fighting some foreign bad guys that we don't have emotional connections to and being the feminist superqueen laying waste to the evil patriarchal systems, she was massacring the home team instead because she thought she was in the moral right no matter what.

[–]angels-fanCrooning over hellscapes0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ventress in The Clone Wars cartoons (not The Clone Wars tv show) was fucking bad ass!!

[–]rachaellefler2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

" without cramming the fact that she's a woman down the viewer's throats "

IKR, that's what I like about a lot of anime heroines too, that they can kick ass for the sake of kicking ass but not to ram home some out-of-the-blue gender preaching.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

Ripley kicked ass and took names.

She did, but the exoskeleton sure did add to the believability.

I think there is one more level to this. Women in stories in the past have leaned on cunning, subterfuge, and sex. Bluffing your way into the inner circle with unrequited promises of sex....or even with sex.....is still brave as hell. Completely committed to the team.

But a single whiff of female protagonists using one of their most powerful cards, sex, would be the shitshow to end all shitshows.

[–]officerkondoRedder Shade of Purple Man1 point2 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

She did, but the exoskeleton sure did add to the believability.

Have you seen Alien?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

Have you seen Alien?

The first one, yes, and the exoskeleton evened out the game. It was a +10 strength and +12 constitution.

[–]officerkondoRedder Shade of Purple Man4 points5 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

You are thinking of Aliens. There is no exoskeleton in Alien.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

heh...when Ripley was mentioned above, I think it was her very first appearance that was being thought about. It's certainly the one i thought about. Way, way before all the virtue signaling.

[–]officerkondoRedder Shade of Purple Man1 point2 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Yes, and her first appearance is in Alien, the movie with no exoskeleton.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (12 children) | Copy Link

The scene with the exoskeleton made it more realistic, but whatever.

[–]officerkondoRedder Shade of Purple Man3 points4 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Can you please signal that you understand that the exoskeleton appears in Aliens and not Alien?

[–]caseynotcasey1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

laughed at this pretty hard and I'm afraid to click the "continue this thread" button

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

No, because it doesn't matter. My only point was that it was an equalizer that added realism to the scene. If the movie was recent, your point would be more important, but the iconic scene in my mind was well before everyone got Woke.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

That's because they're two different movies. Alien is more sci-fi horror, and Ripley doesn't go toe-to-toe with the xenomorph, but simply blasts it into space - so she also doesn't need a mecha suit for this.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Alien is more sci-fi horror, and Ripley doesn't go toe-to-toe with the xenomorph, but simply blasts it into space - so she also doesn't need a mecha suit for this.

Man, all I was saying is that when the portray women being clever and evening out the balance of power to make it a fair fight, it adds to the believability.

When they pretend that women can go toe to toe without some advantage, it gets....tiring.

[–]officerkondoRedder Shade of Purple Man1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Ripley kicked ass and took names. She was a super-strong female protagonist that both men and women liked. More men than women, actually, mostly due to the genre of the movie. And she was liked and admired, mostly by men, for her badassery, not for being some hot chick in skimpy clothing. And the problems she faced weren't due to being a women and men not taking her seriously.

What is very telling is that you can cast Ripley as a man and make zero changes to the script. Try that with Captain Marvel.

The fact that she was a woman in a man's world

I never felt like Ripley was in a "man's world". She just seemed like someone competently doing her job.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

What is very telling is that you can cast Ripley as a man and make zero changes to the script.

This is also why Rogue One didn't feel very political despite that movie being arguably the most diverse Star Wars installment - there was no active attempt to shove politics down the viewers' throats here.

...no wonder Kathleen Kennedy fired Garth Edwards.

[–]billybones110 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Alien is fundamentally a horror movie, and women make for much better prey (kickass or wimpering). The audience just cares about a woman more. The threat and emotion is heightened. Stick a guy in there and it wouldn't be the same.

[–]je_kut_is_bourgeois1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

There are still plenty of films that have "strong female characters" that are just good characters in their own right without having to be female for it; even Disney princesses nowadays are on that train: Moana could have just as easily been a male; it doesn't matter for the plot; it's just a strong determined character in a tight situation that pulls through with determination and wits.

But those are not the things that are watched by this whole "identity crowd"; they want a character that is based around their whole identity fetish; this "strong female characters" is not what they are after: rather they are after a character that is female, feminine, identities as female, being female is relevant to the plot, stereotypically female, does not overcome gender roles and where you are reminded every 5 minutes that the character is female so they best "identify" with it. You can swap female for any other random identity thing.

Like Nick Fury is actually just badass in its own right and the character was originally white; it doesn't really matter but then they came with Black Panther and you watch that and every 5 minutes of that film they need to remind you in some way that the character is black if you hadn't figured it out already.

If you don't care about that then there's nothing left any more about those characters because the that identity fetish consumes 80% of the character.

But really good well written characters that happen to be minorities still exist and are everywhere; but those are not the films that get media attention ove rit because they don't appease the identity fetish crowd that writes the news articles highlighting this. There was so little attention given to the fact that Nick Fury was made black in the MCU after the Ultimate Marvel version compared to to Black Panther—a character that was always black—simply because the entire marketing hype of Black Panther already needed to remind you every second that the character was black and it completely consumed the character and that's exactly what the identity fetishist viewer wants to see. BP had some interesting things left though opposed to the Wonder Woman film... that was really a character with no definition beyond "being female"; at least BP was still defined by an interesting conflict of tradition vs modernity and having to accept that its parent wasn't the great king that it always thought it was.

[–]feralsun2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Snort.

​

The role of Ripley was written for a male actor. At that last minute, they cast Sigourney Weaver, because they didn't think a man would go back for the cat.

​

Ripley is an actual example of 'gender-bending a male story'. Unlike Rey, who is an original female character. Or Captain Marvel, who has been both male and female in the comics since the eighties.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

And it still worked better than either.

Albeit Captain Marvel's problem is mostly Brie Larson being such an insufferable cunt.

[–]billybones110 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ripley kicked ass and took names. She was a super-strong female protagonist that both men and women liked. More men than women, actually, mostly due to the genre of the movie. And she was liked and admired, mostly by men, for her badassery, not for being some hot chick in skimpy clothing. And the problems she faced weren't due to being a women and men not taking her seriously. The fact that she was a woman in a man's world wasn't the issue she was overcoming. She was a woman placed in a serious situation where she kicked ass and overcame it, without cramming the fact that she's a woman down the viewer's throats.

Women have always been the protagonists in horror movies. They're the central character, more often than not. And, if there is no central character, you can be assured it will be the female character that survives the longest.

[–]passepar2t31 points32 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Well, it turns out that creating compelling original content is quite hard.

[–]atlantic68Purple Shill19 points20 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

So many trash sequels

[–]blackkindergods7 points8 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

It’s not that hard it’s just Disney has a monopoly on theaters and can pump out low risk trash that will make money.

Movies suck so much lately

[–]passepar2t5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Literally all creative visual works that get financed these days are safe committee-designed sequels of existing bankable properties, made not because a creator had a vision but because the accounting department said he had to.

[–]blackkindergods2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It’s SO ANNOYING..

I like going to movies! And the fucking marvel and Star Wars spam on Reddit ugh

[–]angels-fanCrooning over hellscapes1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Into The Spiderverse would like word...

Speaking of... Gwen Stacy was bad ass without having "muh girl power" shoved down our throats.

[–]darudeboysandstormSoup on the stove, bread rising, apple pie1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Either is quite hard or expensive.

[–]TheBookOfSeilAn ounce of Snu Snu is worth a pound of cure11 points12 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I’m pretty sure this has been brought up already - The characterization of masculinity portrayed by women in an attempt to show that “women can do stuff too.” It’s mostly projection by modern feminism/progressives of what they wish they were versus what they actually are.

.......and let’s not forget that those movies were just terrible.

[–]FlyingResearcher6 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Women (and / or feminists) complain about this kind of stuff but never do anything in real life to fix it.

Instead of whining and complaining to Hollywood, they should encourage the parents of young girls to teach them how to be independent and responsible on their own, without the help of a man.

Put down that wedding magazine or that article titled 10 ways to make him go crazy for you and instead read an article about sports, or astronomy, or cars, or anything else besides boys / marriage / honeymoons / children / etc.

[–]TheBookOfSeilAn ounce of Snu Snu is worth a pound of cure1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I think that is part of being a woman/girl though. They like to fantasize about what reality could be like for them. It’s a reward in itself, which is why some women turn angry or depressed when those things don’t happen. I’d say that’s more a characteristic of being a human in the modern world. Men fantasize about being desired by women or being a hero and saving someone’s life, and when those things don’t happen, they either turn angry and resentful or they question their self-worth. Perhaps this is simply being done by women and expressed through feminism.

[–]FlyingResearcher1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

So men fantasize about doing something with themselves. Something that will benefit society or help other people. And women fantasize about... having someone take care of them and provide for them.

So women are selfish and lazy basically. Not just in real life, but in their fantasies also.

[–]TheBookOfSeilAn ounce of Snu Snu is worth a pound of cure1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Those were obviously just examples, but men generally fantasize about doing manly things and women generally fantasize about doing womanly things, yes. Men fantasize about doing things and women fantasize about things happening to them. Of course, they are both the center of attention in their fantasies, though.

[–]crackrocksteady7buying gf24 points25 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Instead of creating original successful icons: Clarice Starling (Silence of the Lambs), Ripley (Alien franchise), and Buffy (The Vampire Slayer), they push to create characters that are just the female version of (and in relation to) men.

part of this is because modern hollywood is complete trash and hasnt made a good original movie in almost a decade

[–]guy_246012 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Plenty of original movies exist, they just are not the heavily promoted blockbusters.

It also depends on your definition of original. If you want to be silly about it, you could probably knock out 95% of all known literature with 15 of 20 tropes/ motifs, so in that sense nothing new has been written for thousands of years.

It starts to get into calling categories the same. Is Inception basically Dreamscape(1984) well yeah, but thats like calling all people the same by ignoring all of the details.

It would be like calling art unoriginal by saying "eh its just a painting of a person" or "eh thats just another marble statue" "oh gee another self portrait /yawn"

The flood story in the bible? The Epic of Gilgamesh.

Yeah people called Avatar Dances With Wolves in space, but thats exactly the kind of slippery slope that is silly imo.

If you want to say we dont need a new batman movie, I could probably agree. Batman is just an emo Sherlock Holmes with updated technology anyway, but that didn't stop me from enjoying the Dark Knight.

If you want truly bad paint by numbers insipid movies, Hallmark is what you are looking for. My mom watches those all the time. "plucky young woman faces mundane challenges" probably describes the bulk of those movies.

I've seen many movies I found terribad in spite of being original. The Blair Witch Project for example.

We can do this dance with any creative medium.

[–]prostate-apostatespectacle beta1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

The grand Budapest hotel was a great orginal film .

[–]crackrocksteady7buying gf0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah. 5 years old though

Maybe almost a decade is exaggerating but there sure has been a drought lately. Mad max 3 was good (ruined by feminism though). That's 2015

[–]prostate-apostatespectacle beta2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The 7 psychopaths was also good.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

True.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

That is not because of feminism though it is because of global capitalism, most blockbuster type movies generate revenue because of international marketing not ticket sales in the US. And they do not need to be original indie movies often now make a modest profit if they keep costs down.

The most original "American" movie I have seen in the last few years was a non traditional western called "The Rider" about a poor/working class young man who has to reconcile how an accident fucks with his dreams in rodeo and it was made by a Chinese woman with non actors. If you want original Hollywood movies you have to with a couple of Director exceptions, go back more like 25 years and if you want original action Hollywood made by American Directors probably about the same. Original does not get the go ahead because it does not make money.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That is not because of feminism though it is because of global capitalism, most blockbuster type movies generate revenue because of international marketing not ticket sales in the US. And they do not need to be original indie movies often now make a modest profit if they keep costs down.

Let's just say they're two problems that were originally unrelated but now have entered an unholy matrimony. Well, actually, it's three problems - not only are we suffocated with a franchise flicks with a feminist spin, but franchise movies in general (with or without the feminism in it) also tend to be far worse than the first installment.

The last good Terminator movie for example was T2 from 1991, and now they've been dragging the cadaver of that franchise through the theaters for almost three decades. It says a lot that the only enjoyable original (i.e. "not part of an established franchise") popcorn blockbuster flick in the tradition of the 80s action cinema I can think of at the top of my head is Pacific Rim.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

What did Bill Burr say when he was asked about this? I think it was something along the lines of “Just make your own shit”.

Essentially instead of trying to weed their way into what is already there, and only a small population want them there, they should just make their own films, novels, video games, etc. Are there many women action films? No, so make them. Jordan Peele has the right idea, he’s making films so black actors can get lead roles. A lot of black filmmakers are doing the same. Instead of expecting everyone to just welcome you in with open arms, just make your own thing for your group that you feel isn’t getting enough representation.

[–]Ascimatorsmirks audibly4 points5 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

I think that even if they create an original character, there will always be people who'll say that's "just a female Thor", or a female Iron Man, or female any other iconic male character, because male characters have covered most archetypes already.

[–]guy_246017 points8 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

"people" can and will say anything given enough of them.

You cant create a male character without the same criticism to be fair. The problem is when its obvious pandering (femthor/ironwoman/catwoman/shehulk/shera etc)

I dont remember anyone saying The Hunger Games was basically The Running Man. Googling it, people did, but its only something I thought of writing this post. I just enjoyed the fucking movie. Ghostbusters crossed the line, the hunger games did not.

If people want to nit pick they can, but I think it can be ignored. If people enjoy it, it will sell, originality is clearly overrated. Its a rather mild criticism to say something is not original.

[–]FlyingResearcher2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

The book the hunger games actually plagiarized a famous Japanese novel (turned movie) called Battle Royale.

[–]guy_246011 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The Running man came out 12 years before that :D

I could probably find dozens of even older movies with a similar theme.

Fun fact Stephen King wrote The Running Man in 1982. 17 years before The Battle Royale. I'm not convinced The Hunger Games was plagiarism though.

The Battle Royal apparently has neck trackers that explode if you attempt to remove them or if they dont stay where they are supposed to. If you've seen The Running Man that should sound familiar lol!

If you never saw a nail before and I told you what I wanted to do with it, you'd probably end up using a stick with a rock on it. Doesn't mean you stole the idea =)

Every time I think I have a decent idea I assume it already exists.

[–]FlyingResearcher0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The Running man came out 12 years before that :D

I could probably find dozens of even older movies with a similar theme.

I get your point but there are big difference between The Running man and Battle Royale / The Hunger Games.

We're not talking about shared themes so much as we are straight plagiarism, almost on a chapter by chapter basis in some cases. Like there are side by side comparisons of the movies that would make the jury of Blurred Lines shit their pants.

And for the record, I don't think Blurred Lines was plagiarized. I think the age of the jury played a big factor in that ruling seeing how the other song would have been popular back when they were younger.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Though the author claimed she never heard of Battle Royale.

(I have to add that I am inclined to believe her here since BR is fairly obscure all in all)

[–]FlyingResearcher0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

You mean you've never heard of Battle Royale? It's not like it was published by Stephen King, but it's not really that obscure, either (especially if you read a lot of books).

How old are you, if you don't mind me asking?

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh, I did hear of Battle Royale (quite some time before Hunger Games actually), but the way I see it, it's not as if it's a staple of modern geek culture that is well-known even outside said culture (stuff like Alien, Terminator, Star Wars, Star Trek).

Basically, it's something Japan aficionados are familiar with, but not necessarily a middle-aged female author of children's books.

[–]FlyingResearcher1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The novel was fairly influential outside of Japan though. Not only did it kick-start an entire video game genre, it's also one of the default books that people talk about when dealing with cultural taboos.

I mean it's kind of like the Russian book Lolita in a lot of ways. Most people never read the book but most people generally know what it's about (not everyone knows that there was a book called Lolita, but you'd assume that someone familiar with literature would have heard of it before).

I just find it hard to believe that you can be an author and have never heard of it before. She certainly would have done some research while she was writing her book. And "fight to the death books" brings up Battle Royale literally in the first Google result...

[–]87AudreyHorne0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I dont remember anyone saying The Hunger Games was basically The Running Man

I always thought it was just Battle Royale

[–]officerkondoRedder Shade of Purple Man0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I have never heard of any such criticism of Wonder Woman.

that's "just a female Thor", or a female Iron Man

Female Thor and female Iron Man exist.

[–]billybones110 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nobody says that about Mean Girls or The Descent.

[–]CRGRO-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You're misinterpreting the context

[–]belletaco0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

“Just make your own shit”.

they do, and there are a lot more female lead projects now (mostly in TV, but still) but you can still make an all-female Oceans 8 because.. why not? it's fun.

[–]GridReXXit be like that7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Movies and programs that cater to authentic female experiences already exist.

Fried Green Tomatoes is not a masculine movie.

The problem is female audiences are more likely to watch a Marvel film and also a powerful drama.

Male audiences are not.

Anyway what that really means is more of the movie watching population is going to go see a superhero blockbuster.

If you want to have female representation but also attract male movie goers, you have to cater to what men are already used to and invested in. The goal is revenue.

[–]cattermelon34ADHD medication is a feminist conspiracy6 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

To be fair, remakes are in. All the different spiderman's, X-Men reboot, a star is born, exc.

This is just a way for studios to capitalize on both.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a pretty staunch feminist and I'm not the most jazzed about it either. I'd love to see women in original content but if I have to choose female reboots are better than nothing.

[–]atlantic68Purple Shill4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Remakes are just easy

[–]guy_246014 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

lazy gender swap reboots are an insult to the intelligence of the audience.

Its like saying "women are dumb enough they will buy anything if we have enough women in it even if they dont watch that kind of movie" Ghostbusters is a great example of how the audience isn't that dumb. with a domestic gross of 128mm and a production budget of 144mm its clear that women didn't go to see it.

Sure you can try to blame sexism/ the patriarchy, but its unconvincing nonsense where its clear we started with the conclusion and worked backwards from there.

Women buy stuff too right? its like people act as though women have no agency/influence.

[–]CRGRO1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You savage

[–]playful_mythPink Pill Woman2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The mantle of Captain Marvel has been passed between many women and men. That's not really a good example.

[–]wotsittoyou1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

And let's face it Captain Marvels are almost always alien DNA melds too. So ummm, maybe feeling entitled to normality from them in terms of anything is a bit much.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Men are stronger and faster than women. Simply plugging a woman into a male role makes us work all the harder to suspend disbelief.

Otherwise, I'm sympathetic to what others have said, stories about women would be nice.

That said....if a modern story had its female protagonist use sex to get her way, the shitstorm would be popcorn worthy.

[–]billybones110 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

The female equivalent of physical power is sexual and reproductive power. But feminists hate any display of female sexual power and want to pretend women have physical power, for some reason. They don't understand that a man displaying his muscles and a woman displaying her tits are equivalent.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

But feminists hate any display of female sexual power and want to pretend women have physical power, for some reason.

I really don't entirely understand it. There have been Grand Dames going way back.

[–]billybones110 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't understand your comment either.

[–]SerpentCypher6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think the reason they're so insistent on gender bending established characters and franchises instead of creating iconic female characters in their own right makes sense if you listen to a lot of feminist/social justice rhetoric. Gender swapping characters not only fulfills the goal of more female role models (ignoring the fact that they invariably make these women insufferable cunts), but also takes things away from teh menz. Two birds, one stone.

It also helps to continue their desired narrative because if they created new characters nobody would bat an eyelid, but gender bending established characters creates controversy, fans of said characters don't like the change, which allows feminists to write their articles about how "manbabies" are scared of female empowerment, and how backlash to the change proves that there is still a huge problem with misogyny.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

but also takes things away from teh menz.

I think this is particularly important.

That and the complete and utter lack of talent that prevents them from coming up with original content.

[–]yaseedog will hunt[🍰] 3 points4 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

captain marvel isn't really an example of a male character being swapped for a female one. there's been male and female captain marvels since the 80s (and ms. marvel obviously was always female)

and I think there's still plenty of media with iconic female characters being created (hunger games, mad max: fury road, star wars); revamping of older properties like ghostbusters with female leads is not all that common

[–]kragshotDon't mind me...I'm just studying all of you talking monkeys....2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

The gender bending wasn't with Larson's character. It was with Annette Benning's character. In the comics Danvers got her powers from the original Captain Mar Vell who was a Kree male and one of the iconic characters in Golden Age Marvel comic universe. This new movie completely dismisses and erases the legacy of Jim Starlin who created the original Captain Marvel.

That is why hardcore comics fans are pissed at the movie.

[–]yaseedog will hunt[🍰] 1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

full disclosure I have not actually seen the movie but I'm betting that OP's beef was not with the fact that they declined to trace captain marvel's lineage back through like 7 iterations of the character

some things do not translate well from the comics world to the screen lol

[–]kragshotDon't mind me...I'm just studying all of you talking monkeys....0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

The deal was that Danvers was "Ms. Marvel" before she changed her name to "Captain Marvel." There was another character that actually took the moniker "Captain Marvel" before Danvers did (Monica Rambeau). Her origin and story line was completely separate from the "Mar Vell/Danvers" storyline. Danvers was caught up in a story arc that crossed over with the X-Men and resulted in the evolution of the character "Rogue" who not only stole Danvers' powers but her memories as well. Danvers eventually recovered but while Rogue kept the powers she stole and regained her own personality, Danvers evolved and her powers went into a different direction, eventually resulting in the version we have today.

The movie decided to skip all of the stuff in the middle of her origin story with Rogue (for obvious reasons), but they could have left her originally getting her powers from an interaction with the original Kree Captain Marvel (as a man), instead of the agenda-driven gender and career swap (he was just a Kree soldier who himself gained super powers and decided to defend Earth and other worlds from Kree imperialism).

This wasn't about "bad translation." This was about pushing an agenda.

[–]yaseedog will hunt[🍰] 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

oh I see.

I still don't think that's why OP was citing the movie as an example of feminists pushing an agenda though

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

I still don't think that's why OP was citing the movie as an example of feminists pushing an agenda though

That was because Brie Larson did it every chance she got; and the media - who are in love with the feminist narrative - latched onto that and made her the best-protected celebrity in Hollywood.

Which is funny because Brie Larson is such an insufferable person that she's actually detrimental to the entire "let's educate people to become better feminists by showing Strong Female HeroesTM "-plan simply by virtue of being the way she is.

[–]yaseedog will hunt[🍰] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't follow celeb gossip much. What about her is insufferable?

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Just watch interviews with her

[–]yaseedog will hunt[🍰] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't think I have enough interest to do that tbh

you can have this one :)

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

She manages to do anti-PR on her own behalf just by being herself

[–]FlyingResearcher0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

and I think there's still plenty of media with iconic female characters being created (hunger games, mad max: fury road, star wars); revamping of older properties like ghostbusters with female leads is not all that common

I swear some of these people live in a separate reality from the rest of us. It's like they want something to complain about and will pretty much ignore the real world in order to find something to be mad about.

[–]rus9384Misanthrope1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Is Tomb Raider the win of feminism?

P.S. Almost typed "felinism". I consider myself a felinist.

[–]MyNameIsMud00561 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

You have a point, but I just want to rebut the Captain Marvel part. Captain Marvel has not always been a male character, and in fact has been a woman several times, including Carol Danvers, which this film and current character is based on. So it’s not “gender bending” in the same way at all as the other films you mentioned. I think it was a good decision to utilize the Carol Danvers storyline, in part because there had was no solo film in the MCU for a female character up to that point, and because hers is the newest Captain Marvel story. So no, her existence is not in relation to men.

And I just have to say it, not that you were trying to bring it up, but can’t we have films where women are the main characters without it being politicized? Not every film with a female protagonist has to be a “feminist” film. It can just be a film as any other film, and gender should not be the way we determine its value or how good it is. Every film should just be evaluated by the same criteria, from the plot, to the characters, to the actors and actresses. That’s really the ultimate goal of feminism after all, is to have equality between genders, for everyone to be treated the same, not one gender better than the other.

Just my two cents.

[–]headchefboyardeeGood Faith Answerer1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm going to rebut your rebut. Captain Marvel Carol Danvers got her title as Captain Marvel in 2012. She was originally Ms.Marvel which was a female duplicate of Mar Vell (a male Kree general) created in the mid seventies to give Marvel Comics a better female representation.

[–]kandyapplezincel larping as a thot1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

in what ways are blockbuster movies made by hollywood a product of any "feminist system"

[–]Physiologist21Cynic1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean, Hollywood is basically one monogamous elitist leftist blob so.

[–]Zaphodisacoolname1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think part of the point is to show that nothing about these stories is inherently male. I think it's just refreshing and fun to see a group of women instead of men.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

When people feminize male characters and then create hentai about them it creates mixed feelings for this lone fap hero. I jerk it, yes, but I feel a vague sense of shame and questioning my sexuality afterward.

Look at this Bowsette (SFW) porn they have lately, I mean I can't not jerk it to a new character -- that would mean skipping out on the bulk of this month's production from top hentai artists -- but did anyone stop to think about the effect this would have on straight male viewers? I already feel gay from jerking it to traps (thanks a bunch 4chan), this is almost getting to be too much.

[–]MerakiKosmos1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree, especially as a kid who grew up on somethign like Kim Possible (one of the most successful Disney shows ever made featuring an original femal character as th elead that was beloved by all boys and girls)

[–]NeedingAdvice861 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It isn't so much a gender problem as the real problem is that Hollywood is completely void of actual talent in writers, producers and creativity.....they suck so bad that they have to 'steal' the product of actually talented writers from 20, 30, 40 years ago in order to make a product.

[–]TheJim66Red God-Emperor of Slut Country1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's plain propaganda .I can't explain it otherwise .All that SJW crap is actually costing them millions of dollars.If they cared about representation they would just create a new female character and would just market it accordingly.If people liked it it would become a hit.If they didn't ,it would just flop and not drag with it entire lucrative franchises.

[–]FlyingResearcher1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Feminists have complained for decades, for instance, that women in novels only exist in relation to men

A very large percentage of women in real life are like this too.

Our music, movies, and TV shows are a reflection of who we are as a society. If you want independent female characters in movies, then you need a society full of women who are themselves independent from men.

[–]FlyingResearcher0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

A couple of examples to illustrate what I'm talking about:

  • While men are learning hobbies and doing things themselves, women are learning about men: how to make him fall in love with you, how to get him to lust after you, how to get him to buy you flowers, etc.

  • Male magazines are about cars, technology, hobbies, etc, whereas females magazines are about... Men. Men and fashion / makeup.

  • While men are watching action movies or reading literature, women are watching romance movies and reading smut novels.

  • While men are building their careers and doing something with their lives, women are chasing after Mr. Right who will will buy her a house and support her children.

If you want Hollywood to make the kinds of movies that you're talking about, you should encourage women to stop relying on men, to stop fantasizing about Mr Right and that big wedding / honeymoon, or the six kids that gives her an excuse to stay at home while her husband is out earning money for her.

Women need to have their own hobbies, develop their own skills, and build their own careers, instead of chasing after men who have done all of those things already.

Until that happens it's going to be hard for Hollywood or pop music or anything else to follow suit.

[–]Zaphodisacoolname1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Women already have those things lol, our lives don't revolve around men.

[–]FlyingResearcher0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

You'd have me fooled just looking at the women's section of any magazine stand, book stand, movie stand, or any kind of woman's blog or anything like that. It's all about boys, marriage, honeymoons, fashion / makeup, dating, sex, romance, and stuff like that.

[–]Zaphodisacoolname0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Do you read many of those magazines? The women’s book section, what? I’m a woman and I read National Geographic and Smithsonian magazines, I read si-fi and non-fiction books. Women read magazines about cars and men look at relationship blogs. Makeup and fashion have nothing to do with men or relationships. Reality is not as simple as you make it out to be and there is nothing wrong with enjoying those topics.

[–]FlyingResearcher0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Next time you're in books a million head to the back where they keep all their magazines. Besides a few fashion magazines, all of the ones targeting women focus on men and dating.

In the men's section you have mainly hunting and guns and cars and things like that. Besides a couple lifestyle magazines, none of them ever talk about women.

Sure there are exceptions but you'd have to be blind to not know what I'm talking about.

[–]AutoModeratorMarried to Littleknownfacts[M] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Attention!

  • You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

  • For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.

  • If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.

  • OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]nevomintoarcePurple Pill Woman2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Switching the gender of known superheroes is less labor intensive than coming up with new female characters.

[–]Christian_Kong80% Natural Red2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Meanwhile original women led movies like "Annihilation"(%90 female cast, has smart/strong women) completely bomb at the box office and go almost straight to Netflix.

I think that is somewhat the other side of the coin. I don't think Annihilation would have done much/any better with a male cast. They have to put women(as well as minorities in some cases) in these familiar(but male for the last century) to show that Hollywood is more open to diversity.

[–]belletaco1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

speaking of female led entertainment - everyone should watch 'Dead to Me' on netflix. It's so, soooo good.

[–]angels-fanCrooning over hellscapes0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Christina Applegate is scary!!

[–]WestsideMoonWalkerNot a Negative Creep0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I love how bent out of shape people get over this. It's amusing seeing so much impotent rage.

[–]surreptitioussoidog0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

They say imitation is the greatest form of flattery, but that's only true if the imitation doesn't suck.

Most of these 'paint by numbers' 'requels' appeal to the young and easily influenced and the old and bitter post-wall crowd and they're not worth the film they shot it on. A razzie would be a compliment!

[–]MattcwuJust sticking up for the oppressed and voiceless women0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's because the studios are focused on making money, not pushing fringe agendas.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The more this shit is going on, the more I change my mind about Freud - when the guy came up with penis envy, he was onto something...

[–]Transmigratory0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Female empowerment is a big thing, so why not capitalise on it? The market makes itself.

[–]GuyWithTheStalker0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I also enjoy movies like Crash which don't have a singular protagonist

...but since those movies are both few and far between and usually not well received, why not split the lead character roles equally among men and women? I feel like many folks need a lead character in order to get into a film and also appreciate the often equally important supporting roles.

Edit: Fuuuuuck me. 😕 I'm now Taylor Swift. 😐 Welcome to the 1989 tour.

[–]blackedoutfastRed Pill Man0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

they're trying maximize profit while also having to pander to the tumblrinas/SJWs/progressive crowd.

[–]PeechMan0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

If they start trying to emphasise female qualities as 'strong', they will quickly fall flat when they realise these two notions are, for the most part, incompatible.

[–]TealllaneNo Pill0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

They've also talked about Idris Elba being the first Black James bond for over 10 years now...I don't think you need to worry about see Jennifer Bond anytime in the next century.

Ghostbusters, that was a flop. That movie would have failed even if they brought in new and younger men to replace the original cast. It was doomed from the beginning and just playing off the nostalgia gimmick.

Captain Marvel formerly known as Ms. Marvel. Has been around since the 70s with the same Kree Powers. And for awhile She was Binary before becoming Captain Marvel. I believe that Carol became Captain Marvel somewhat recently around the time Marvel Comics decided to create Kamala Kahn and give her the title Ms. Marvel, becoming the first Muslim-American superhero. Captain Marvel isn't really gender bending. Mar-Vell aka the first Captain Marvel has been dead since the 80s and is only sometimes visited when characters go to the realm of the dead or whatever. Carol is her own character and has been for decades, she just took on a new title.

You can make the exact same argument against Miles Morales, Miguel O'Hara, Gwen Stacy....for literally any of the spider people who take on monikers of Spiderman or some variation with the word "Spider" in the name.

[–]MisterJose0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I always thought it was ironic that the new Wonder Woman was loved by many feminist sources, while the character acts nothing like a feminist: She doesn't complain once about being mistreated because she's a woman, instead she earns the respect of the men by being the strong and brave person she is, and never complaining. She doesn't rail against men who lust for her, or find it traumatic to deal with, she simply sees it as a minor distraction from her goals, and doesn't really care all that much.

You mention Buffy, and Whedon's Firefly is another example. His female characters are strong characters, AND sexual fantasies for men, which kinda goes against the idea that men only want some demure non-actor who doesn't show intelligence or ability. The reason men don't like the female Ghostbusters has nothing to do with men not willing to see women in protagonist roles, it's that we hate having a cheap message shoved in our faces.

[–]H2orocks30000 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It makes money and they know it's a guaranteed hit.
You can't stop that.

And they have been on this marvel kick for a long time now.

[–]4gotOldU-nameAvoiding Kool-Aid as Much as Possible-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think it really as simple as poor writing (or "corporate" forcing it to be poor). Worst of all, it crosses over to a "forced diversity" that is so obvious it's obnoxious.

Worst example: Jack Ryan series on Amazon Prime. I mean seriously, a top level CIA meeting without a crusty old white guy in the meeting? Scenes were filled with all young and diverse characters, not found at top levels of any government department in reality.

Now, here's two examples of "natural" diversity that wasn't bulldozed in your face:

Blockers: Interracial marriage that looked really natural. A single dad already knowing his daughter was a lesbian, but actually was nailing parenting (even though his character was a complete ass/idiot at times). It was all just natural and unforced.

Booksmart: Movie has a Trans character (implied), and the movie didn't care whether Ryan was into girls or guys - ended up being guys, much to the chagrin of the female lead that came out 2 yrs ago. The fact that they were girls in the lead, one being lesbian just felt "natural" or "right".

So I guess it's all down to the writing to determine if handling leading women or diversity in the cast or story is forced on you or natural.

Diversity and women leads in entertainment is great, but only when the audience barely or doesn't even notice it.

8/10 times it's just poorly done nowadays, much worse on TV than movies too.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter