Not saying it’s negative, just saying that it wasn’t like there haven’t always been cool, strong female characters. I will always point to Ellen Ripley, arguably the MOST badass character, regardless of gender, in the history of Science Fiction.
But Ripley wasn’t the norm. And I do recall in a behind the scenes segment that supposedly one of the cast members wasn’t thrilled that a woman was given the hero’s role. There has always been that attitude and sometimes audiences do need a reminder that women exist.
Completely agree Ripley was awesome, but she wasn’t part of a family friendly franchise and marketed to kids specifically (although there was the kenner action figures I guess)
Yeah, it’s not that strong female characters do not exist in the movie world. It’s just they are an exception in a 5:1 ratio. And even then they are likely to be hot and/or in their undies. Even Ripley, a powerful hardass women, kills of the Alien in her skinnies.
GB16 is not about glorifying women. There are dumb/smart females as well as males in the movie and the main cast is far from perfect themselves, in behaviour and looks. GB16, just like all Feig movies, is about giving female actrices a chance to shine and break through without it being a chick flick or looking hot.
I absolutely see what you guys are saying. I’m sure I’ll get attacked for what I’m about to say, but I kinda think it needs to be said.
Women and Men are biologically different. It’s just a fact. That’s not to say there aren’t manly women or feminine man, but since the beginning of recorded history, men did the men stuff and women did the women stuff. Not painting everyone with the same brush, but that’s been how society has worked since the beginning of time. Back in the cavemen days, I’m pretty sure the women weren’t complaining that they couldn’t go hunting with the men. This is why women and ONLY women can carry a child, give birth and nurse a child. It’s a scientific fact. I’m sure the men of such eras weren’t questioning why they couldn’t do the specialized things only women could do.
Obviously, there are historic accounts of women warriors and soldiers, but it is, for the most part, a rarity. This is where the 5:1 ratio comes from. What makes such a ratio special, in my eyes is in fact the rarity of it.
Obviously you can use nature and wildlife as an example of strong females (lioness defending her young). When pushed to the brink, male or female, everyone has the capability of becoming a warrior.
Diluting the lines between the biological and inherent capabilities of males and females is a very dangerous prospect. I think a lot of people confuse a woman’s inherent biology as weakness, because we’ve been programmed into think the only way to be “strong” is to have big muscles and the ability to physically defend yourself. Women are mentally stronger than men and men are physically stronger than woman, again, biologically. Anyone is capable of going to the gym and/or taking martial arts. Just like anyone is capable of becoming educated and being able to become mentally disciplined.
I don’t want to come across as a sexist, because I am not a sexist. I just don’t think it should be considered “progressive” to nerf the world because some people seem to forget that it isn’t sexist to admit that, biologically speaking, women’s bodies/minds and men’s bodies/minds are designed for different things.
I agree to a certain extent. But we are talking about fictional universes. Even if it’s more typical for men to be psychically strong, the strength male heroes show in movies is pretty unrealistic. So is that much stranger to have the hero be a woman?
While it’s true the bodies are designed for different biological reasons, that should not be a reason why a male actor is chosen above a female one. Society has moved on regarding hunters and mothers. Both genders can act. If gender is not needed for the role because of setting or story, both genders should be considered equally and because of skill, not because of gender.
I’ve already ordered this… https://www.teepublic.com/show/569541-conductors-of-the-metaphysical-examination
You make a great point. No, it’s not.
The problem though is that what happens in fictional universes translates into the real world. Fictional universes are often used as political tools to interpret real world problems, to people who don’t get involved in politics or social issues.
For example, X-men is a translation of the Civil Rights movement.
If the role is written for a male, it should be portrayed by a male. If the role is written for a female, it should be portrayed by a female.
I think you’d be pretty hard pressed to find a script where the gender of said character isn’t clearly displayed by the name of that particular character. Obviously, there are certain roles where it’s a mystery until the end of the movie or book.
I thought the bar for this discussion, along with franchise sequels/reboots in general was set last summer?
…must have been a dream…
But when and why is a role specifically written for a male or female? You should be able to ask the question if I swap the gender of this (small) character, does the story still make sense?
No one is disputing Hollywood is not changing, if that is your point. However, if we would look at the total roles division in 2016, 2015, 2014 etc, I think we can safely say it’s not changing very fast.
But more studios are waking up, thankfully.
1 Like
I don’t think it’s necessary to bar these things from discussion as long as we all remain civil. I sure hope we don’t stifle ideas as to not offend anyone. As long as people aren’t being A-holes to each other for differing opinions, we should be about to talk about these things.
To deny that these subjects have “nothing to do with Ghostbusters” is now null and void, in my opinion.
The moderators here seem to just dislike when people go out of their way to insult each-other over differing views. Obviously, they have every right to do what they want, but I think throughout this particular thread, you don’t really see anyone personally attacking one another.
There should be room on these forums to discuss things like this is an educated and civil manner.
Huh? Bar vs set the bar, dude. As in Fury Road is the bar for gender equality in movies now. As Fury Road is the bar for sequel reboot attempts.
Set to be matched or exceeded.
Just my opinion.
Which is a fine argument, of course. I would love it if every movie I saw surpassed the previous one.
But not all movies can deliver on that. Does not mean those movie are not worthy of our attention or ‘doing it wrong’.
While Mad Max is doing great things, female equality not just about powerful women rolemodels in (very great) action movies though. It’s also about finding more women some jobs in the global movie industry (and not just there to look good in action movies or chickflicks).
For all the wrong reasons?
Exactly!
As long as we don’t jinx it…
See, you misunderstand at important point of filmmaking: you do not just make a film to give a specific gender more jobs in the industry! That is not how you make movies! Story comes first, character comes first. That was the problem of the reboot movie.
In what way did that agenda “come first” in the movie? Where was the big feminist lecture?
Since I noted it being man hating and saying that the movie depicts all the male characters as either ■■■■■■■■ or idiots I guess I should answer your question.
Yes I have seen movies that are sexist towards women. treating them as unnecessarily dumb and helpless where they otherwise shouldn’t be. Yes that did bother me in those movies. I can’t think of a specific example off the top of my head just at the moment though I however am not bothered by a character just being eye-candy and that point with Chris Hemsworth’s character isn’t what stood out to me as “anti-male”.
I think you might be missing the point. Agendas don’t need to have some big lecture or landmark moment to exist.
There were gender specific jokes in the first two movies. It’s nothing new.
Don’t tempt fate or the next thing you know GB2016 will have its own IDW arc.
I’m pretty sure as a form of art, film making can be used as a form of expression for anything the creator wants.
Not trying to change your mind or devalue your opinion, this is just a question. Would it be fair to say that the mayor’s assistant, the hotel clerk (Annie Potts), and the waitresses chatting at the restaurant Rowan ate at, were all ■■■■■■■■ too?
I don’t think you’re a sexist. Men and women are different biologically, absolutely. I just don’t see how women being represented more in film as main protagonists is considered a “nerf” to the world. (granted its early in the am and I’m loopy on pain killers so I may have missed something you said lol).