The Strong Female Character criticism

[sugarcoater]

This point has been discussed here a few times. I thought this video made some interesting points (though I believe several have been referenced here). Just thought I would share it in case anyone is new to the discussion or interested in furthering it.

[Mr. X]

+1

[Dazzle1]

Good points in this video when I see female protagonists in tv and movies with a growing character arc

I don't see Ray, Michael Burnham Carol Danvers

I see Leia, Hermonie, Jadzia Dax, even Gal Gadot's WonderWoman

[Femina]

I find these sorts of discussions to be full of all the wrong questions and lessons. There's nothing wrong with the 'strong female character' it's a sexist assumption/demand on female characters to 'be' a certain way that is held double standard in that the same is NOT expected of male characters. (Arnold Shwartzeneger was allowed to be as bland and nothing as he wanted and people loved him for it... cause man, and just as well any male actor is allowed to portray as SENSITIVE and weak a man as they wish without criticism as the audience allows them the benefit of the doubt that the character is as he is for a reason in the context of the film)

Which isn't to say I think many of the character's alluded to in this video are all, or even most, GOOD characters... but 'the strong female character' and 'good writing' are not bound up in one another in and of themselves. One does not preclude the other.

I have the same issue with the 'Mary Sue' nonsense. It's the WRONG obersevation to make and results in attempts to correct a nonproblem while the REAL problems (Bad writing, lax plotting, poor characterization etc.) persist. It's a DISTRACTION that draws attention away from REAL narrative issues.

[Dazzle1]

I find these sorts of discussions to be full of all the wrong questions and lessons. There's nothing wrong with the 'strong female character' it's a sexist assumption/demand on female characters to 'be' a certain way that is held double standard in that the same is NOT expected of male characters. (Arnold Shwartzeneger was allowed to be as bland and nothing as he wanted and people loved him for it... cause man, and just as well any male actor is allowed to portray as SENSITIVE and weak a man as they wish without criticism as the audience allows them the benefit of the doubt that the character is as he is for a reason in the context of the film)

Which isn't to say I think many of the character's alluded to in this video are all, or even most, GOOD characters... but 'the strong female character' and 'good writing' are not bound up in one another in and of themselves. One does not preclude the other.

I have the same issue with the 'Mary Sue' nonsense. It's the WRONG obersevation to make and results in attempts to correct a nonproblem while the REAL problems (Bad writing, lax plotting, poor characterization etc.) persist. It's a DISTRACTION that draws attention away from REAL narrative issues.

What some of us object to is the unflawed female strong character, as we would a strong unflawed male character.

But there are not really any male equvilents to Rey, Michael Burnham or Captain Marvel.

Batman has major social issues, Bond can be beatan, Superman can easily be tricked

Gary stues like William Robinson and Wesely Crusher were hated

[Femina]

I find these sorts of discussions to be full of all the wrong questions and lessons. There's nothing wrong with the 'strong female character' it's a sexist assumption/demand on female characters to 'be' a certain way that is held double standard in that the same is NOT expected of male characters. (Arnold Shwartzeneger was allowed to be as bland and nothing as he wanted and people loved him for it... cause man, and just as well any male actor is allowed to portray as SENSITIVE and weak a man as they wish without criticism as the audience allows them the benefit of the doubt that the character is as he is for a reason in the context of the film)

Which isn't to say I think many of the character's alluded to in this video are all, or even most, GOOD characters... but 'the strong female character' and 'good writing' are not bound up in one another in and of themselves. One does not preclude the other.

I have the same issue with the 'Mary Sue' nonsense. It's the WRONG obersevation to make and results in attempts to correct a nonproblem while the REAL problems (Bad writing, lax plotting, poor characterization etc.) persist. It's a DISTRACTION that draws attention away from REAL narrative issues.

What some of us object to is the unflawed female strong character, as we would a strong unflawed male character.

But there are not really any male equvilents to Rey, Michael Burnham or Captain Marvel.

Batman has major social issues, Bond can be beatan, Superman can easily be tricked

Gary stues like William Robinson and Wesely Crusher were hated

Batman is SUCH a Gary Stu I can't even... forget his 'social issues'. Not being an extrovert isn't a fucking character flaw. Bruce is 'the smartest' and the 'greatest' at everything even when facing supervillains that should just slap into a pancake in the ground, but since he's DC's special boy he always has EXACTLY the way to counter it. Captain America anyone?

James Bond in particular is the absolute WORST of all of this. Just losing a fight from time to time doesn't mean you aren't a big walking stereotype. Bond is the ULTIMATE example of the suave, confident ladies man who can do no wrong regardless of how much wrong he does. It's really only as recent as the Daniel Craig era that they've bothered to put much effort into his characterization, and while I wager a good penny that people PREFER that over a bland facimile of Bond, it's not as though they were BOTHERED when all Bond was, was a perfect spy who got all the sex and none of the repercussions. If just 'losing a fight here and there' counts then I got news for you, Captain Marvel and Rey BOTH spend some time tied up in situations out of their control (I don't know shit about Michael Burnham, nobody should watch Shit Trek to begin with) In essense, they spend as much time 'tied up' by the smarmy villain as Bond does in the AVARAGE James Bond film... just with 1/25th (in Captain Marvel's case) and 1/8th (in Rey's case) the films to have been more aggressively beat up in/tricked etc.

More to the point, the FILMS themselves that include these types of characters that a certain segment are noisily offended by often suffer from SO MANY problems as to make focusing on this issue over all the rest as opposed to 'amongst' the rest a 'hyperfocusing' problem that says more about the critic than the property. The CriticalDrinker here is an excellent example of someone whose politics bleed SO strongly through basically every video of his I've EVER SEEN, as to make it difficult to watch his videos REGARDLESS of how often I feel like his actual critical instincts elsewhere are QUITE solid... but it doesn't matter what's being reviewed, or how solid the majority of his analysis is, if there's a woman in it, he's gonna be sexist about it. (I acknowledge the DISCUSSION here is ABOUT the Strong Female character trope itself and not just 'the movies' that include them so don't take that to mean I'm calling anyone here out as being 'to focused' on Rey and not enough on say... the far more offensive shit narrative pacing of the new star wars trilogy, that's not what the topic is about)

But indeed, my issue is that there are bajillions of 'strong female characters' that are perfectly beloved OFFSCREEN. Your Catwomans, your Wonder Women an ENORMOUS number in comic books and video games really, but when such a character is included in a BAD FILM, we're suddenly all complaining that 'whamin' are ruining our films!!!!!!!!

I just feel like more PRODUCTIVE conversations are to be had examining the flaws of these films more critical than just what gender the 'flawless protagonist' happens to be, since ordinarily these films have DEEP developmental woes.

[ivandobsky]

Full disclosure: didn't watch the video, but familiar with the argument. He has a point, but honestly, I don't really care.

I really like stoic, ballbusting ice queens, and don't really care how they got to where they are. Without physical adversity, action films are crappy, but it's not necessary for every hero to go on an emotional journey. Leave that shit for the X-Factor.

The real reason I don't like modern films has more to do with just not liking the characters, which seem often a vehicle to express dumb opinions, and are a study in avoiding the "male gaze".

The problem isn't Mary Sues. It's the shoes! Just make Kickasskandy crossed with The Raid and I'll be happy.

[sugarcoater]

I find these sorts of discussions to be full of all the wrong questions and lessons. There's nothing wrong with the 'strong female character' it's a sexist assumption/demand on female characters to 'be' a certain way that is held double standard in that the same is NOT expected of male characters. (Arnold Shwartzeneger was allowed to be as bland and nothing as he wanted and people loved him for it... cause man, and just as well any male actor is allowed to portray as SENSITIVE and weak a man as they wish without criticism as the audience allows them the benefit of the doubt that the character is as he is for a reason in the context of the film)

Which isn't to say I think many of the character's alluded to in this video are all, or even most, GOOD characters... but 'the strong female character' and 'good writing' are not bound up in one another in and of themselves. One does not preclude the other.

I have the same issue with the 'Mary Sue' nonsense. It's the WRONG obersevation to make and results in attempts to correct a nonproblem while the REAL problems (Bad writing, lax plotting, poor characterization etc.) persist. It's a DISTRACTION that draws attention away from REAL narrative issues.

I don't mean this to sound condescending or negative, but I think you may have an ideological blind spot to the topic itself. The issue as I see it, and what I take from the video, is that many current female characters--especially in Disney/Marvel/DC franchises--are presented as "the strong female character" who has no real flaws or weaknesses. This seems to stem from a desire to always show the female lead as needing no growth--she is already practically perfect and just needs her storyline to set her up with villains to be overcome to further establish her perfection and goodness. THIS IS NOT TO SUGGEST ALL FEMALE LEADS FALL INTO THIS CATEGORY. The complaint is about the move towards these unrealistic, less complex and less likable characters while being told by the media and critics that the move is empowering, significant and meaningful. And when fans accurately point out the characters' inadequacies and unlikable nature, the media and critics resort to ad hominem argumentation and cherrypicking a few ignorant people's tweets in order to create a false argument of misogyny and bigotry and thereby ignore and dismiss the criticism.

The comparison to Schwarzenegger is not apt without more specifics. And Arnold was bland, but the scripts worked around it. He was not asked to be a profound character but merely represent pure strength in simple action movies. He was not presented as some sort of complex character and was not praised by the critics for representing a movement of any sort. He, along with Stallone, Van Damme and others, were just action heroes. And they were often temporarily defeated and beaten before overcoming whatever obstacle was set before them. But the key point is this: NONE OF THESE ACTORS WERE PRESENTED AS PORTRAYING TRANSCENDENT CHARACTERS IN NEED OF CONSISTENT PRAISE. The characters were always seen and acknowledged as entertaining and exaggerated.

And the creation of "the strong female character" is precisely what Femina criticizes, which is why I agree. "The strong female character" is the result of Femina's criticism: "bad writing, lax plotting, poor characterization". It's not the actress' fault, it's due to a bad script/plot/direction. I may be wrong, but I sense Femina is adding a non-existent misogynistic element to the argument. A criticism of a move by the entertainment industry to promote, push and endorse "the strong female character" (as defined by the video, not literally female characters who are strong) is not a criticism of lead women in movies and series have strong qualities. I genuinely think we all want the same outcome: better stories with characters--male and female--worth caring about.

To sum it up, the :43 mark might say it best:

[sugarcoater]

Full disclosure: didn't watch the video, but familiar with the argument. He has a point, but honestly, I don't really care.

I really like stoic, ballbusting ice queens, and don't really care how they got to where they are. Without physical adversity, action films are crappy, but it's not necessary for every hero to go on an emotional journey. Leave that shit for the X-Factor.

The real reason I don't like modern films has more to do with just not liking the characters, which seem often a vehicle to express dumb opinions, and are a study in avoiding the "male gaze".

The problem isn't Mary Sues. It's the shoes! Just make Kickasskandy crossed with The Raid and I'll be happy.

It may be worth the watch as it encapsulates some good points (as I see it). But as for the emotional journey, it need not be emotional as it may be a journey of personal growth or self-actualization by facing one's fears and overcoming adversities. After a while, fights and car chases and the like just grow tiresome. They were exiting in my pre-teen and teen years, but after a while they all seem to blend together and become rather tiresome. What makes things fresh is a connection with the characters and a real curiosity as to what will happen to them over time (which may be why the anti-hero is interesting--they go through greater change and their outcome is not always predictable).

[DonShip]

The problem isn't Mary Sues. It's the shoes! Just make Kickasskandy crossed with The Raid and I'll be happy.

Agreed! Remove more fabric from their costumes, hike up their stiletto heels a couple inches, and THEN go and truly kick ass. Kickasskandy has it right in that aspect.

This is all FANTASY. Don't give me reality. I have the Kardashians, er, the nightly news for that.

[Femina]

I don't mean this to sound condescending or negative, but I think you may have an ideological blind spot to the topic itself. The issue as I see it, and what I take from the video, is that many current female characters--especially in Disney/Marvel/DC franchises--are presented as "the strong female character" who has no real flaws or weaknesses. This seems to stem from a desire to always show the female lead as needing no growth--she is already practically perfect and just needs her storyline to set her up with villains to be overcome to further establish her perfection and goodness. THIS IS NOT TO SUGGEST ALL FEMALE LEADS FALL INTO THIS CATEGORY. The complaint is about the move towards these unrealistic, less complex and less likable characters while being told by the media and critics that the move is empowering, significant and meaningful. And when fans accurately point out the characters' inadequacies and unlikable nature, the media and critics resort to ad hominem argumentation and cherrypicking a few ignorant people's tweets in order to create a false argument of misogyny and bigotry and thereby ignore and dismiss the criticism.

You're not being condescending you're just pointing out your perspective of the matter which is perfectly valid. I don't agree. I think most of the characters in these franchises have their own purpose and reason for interacting with the plot the way that they do (most of the time). When that NECESITATES flaws, Elsa by example of a recent-ish Disney character in this era, she's flawed... when that character is meant to be a RESPONSE to the flaws around her (Moana?) than THATS what she is. I don't fully subscribe to the 'consensus' here on this site that Captain Marvel is as problematic as y'all say she is. She DOESN'T just constantly succeed. The movie OPENS with her being captured. Does she then do a lot of but whupping... yeah.... so does Captain America... then once again she's captured at the end of the film... and gets herself out of it cause she's the hero of the film... the same way Iron Man would get into trouble... and then get himself out of it. The only qualitative difference between the two is that she's female (and people hated the actress) the REST of what was wrong with it vs Iron Man/Captain America would be SCRIPT/PRODUCTION level shit, which is the more apt reason Captain Marvel doesn't rank much higher than lower middle of the MCU pack vs those other films.

The comparison to Schwarzenegger is not apt without more specifics. And Arnold was bland, but the scripts worked around it. He was not asked to be a profound character but merely represent pure strength in simple action movies. He was not presented as some sort of complex character and was not praised by the critics for representing a movement of any sort. He, along with Stallone, Van Damme and others, were just action heroes. And they were often temporarily defeated and beaten before overcoming whatever obstacle was set before them. But the key point is this: NONE OF THESE ACTORS WERE PRESENTED AS PORTRAYING TRANSCENDENT CHARACTERS IN NEED OF CONSISTENT PRAISE. The characters were always seen and acknowledged as entertaining and exaggerated.

I sincerely just don't see that this is actually any different at all. Arnold's characters are exactly the same as what we're discussing here... to the point that one of his BEST films 'Last Action Hero' is a literal EXAMINATION of the kind of hero worship people gave to characters like him... and then goes about actually giving that character growth... or Predator! Another of his best, in which the action hero trope is systematically deconstructed.

And the creation of "the strong female character" is precisely what Femina criticizes, which is why I agree. "The strong female character" is the result of Femina's criticism: "bad writing, lax plotting, poor characterization". It's not the actress' fault, it's due to a bad script/plot/direction. I may be wrong, but I sense Femina is adding a non-existent misogynistic element to the argument. A criticism of a move by the entertainment industry to promote, push and endorse "the strong female character" (as defined by the video, not literally female characters who are strong) is not a criticism of lead women in movies and series have strong qualities. I genuinely think we all want the same outcome: better stories with characters--male and female--worth caring about.

To sum it up, the :43 mark might say it best:

To this I'll only say that I don't actually attribute this to 'much' DELIBERATE misogyny. I think it'd be naïve to assume there is NONE. You don't get hate labeled at say, Brie Larson, so CAREFULLY scripted as to take her words out of context without someone who really REALLY just hates her in the pie somewhere... but I generally find individuals with actual intentional malice toward others are few and far between. The sort of 'sexism' I attribute to this particular subject... is more passive/systemic. People accepted Arnold as a flawless male character because society has never even once bothered to CHALLENGE that to any significant degree (save some of the examples I've mentioned above, but a few individual films don't create a 'movement'), thus no one ever NOTICES, vs the flawless female lead which society is clearly much less willing to let slide without notation. Why is that? What's the difference between the two? One is obviously that they are just different genders, ANOTHER reason could be/very often may well be that the film was just made better as what it is. Maybe people would have fewer problems with a bland strong female character if the film she's in just SCREAMS cheesypop grindhouse 'intentional' timewaster... idk. But I NEVER see those things on trail, or in the headlines, cause they don't sell to the Youtube algorithm the same way criticizing the 'strong female character' does... and as we know it's all about the clicks. So my general OVERALL opinion on the matter remains that I feel the backlash against this character trope more often than not masks discussion of what is ACTUALLY wrong with the projects at more imperative fundamental levels of film making by overanalyzing a SYMPTOM of the real problems.

[Mr. X]

But there are not really any male equvilents to Rey, Michael Burnham or Captain Marvel.

If they did they would suck and have sucked. The know it all boy genius trope is a good example. Nobody liked Wesley Crusher.

I think Dr. Who comes close to the know it all Gary Sue. When Batman is a Gary Sue he sucks real bad.

In fact Superman was a Gary Sue in the beginning and he was horribly boring. Watch the old Superman serials.

Point is all Gary and Mary Sue characters are bad.

Also we had strong female characters so there is no lacking of them. Linda Carter WW was a big mary Sue and was the strongest character in the line up of 1970s characters like 6 mil man, bionic woman, Bill Bixby Hulk etc. so we already had those strong females.

[CIA]

I like sexy girls dressed as heroines being taken advantage of in pornographic scenarios. I don't like it when they act all morally superior. Supergirl the Movie worked; Supergirl the TV show is a revolting display of misandry. Supergirl looks like she's wearing a chastity belt and totally acts like she hates on men. Same goes for the WW movie. Not sexy at all. So disappointing.

I much prefer it when they are tamed sexually. Isn't that why everyone is here? To see sexy superheroines be tamed?

[sugarcoater]

I don't mean this to sound condescending or negative, but I think you may have an ideological blind spot to the topic itself. The issue as I see it, and what I take from the video, is that many current female characters--especially in Disney/Marvel/DC franchises--are presented as "the strong female character" who has no real flaws or weaknesses. This seems to stem from a desire to always show the female lead as needing no growth--she is already practically perfect and just needs her storyline to set her up with villains to be overcome to further establish her perfection and goodness. THIS IS NOT TO SUGGEST ALL FEMALE LEADS FALL INTO THIS CATEGORY. The complaint is about the move towards these unrealistic, less complex and less likable characters while being told by the media and critics that the move is empowering, significant and meaningful. And when fans accurately point out the characters' inadequacies and unlikable nature, the media and critics resort to ad hominem argumentation and cherrypicking a few ignorant people's tweets in order to create a false argument of misogyny and bigotry and thereby ignore and dismiss the criticism.

You're not being condescending you're just pointing out your perspective of the matter which is perfectly valid. I don't agree. I think most of the characters in these franchises have their own purpose and reason for interacting with the plot the way that they do (most of the time). When that NECESITATES flaws, Elsa by example of a recent-ish Disney character in this era, she's flawed... when that character is meant to be a RESPONSE to the flaws around her (Moana?) than THATS what she is. I don't fully subscribe to the 'consensus' here on this site that Captain Marvel is as problematic as y'all say she is. She DOESN'T just constantly succeed. The movie OPENS with her being captured. Does she then do a lot of but whupping... yeah.... so does Captain America... then once again she's captured at the end of the film... and gets herself out of it cause she's the hero of the film... the same way Iron Man would get into trouble... and then get himself out of it. The only qualitative difference between the two is that she's female (and people hated the actress) the REST of what was wrong with it vs Iron Man/Captain America would be SCRIPT/PRODUCTION level shit, which is the more apt reason Captain Marvel doesn't rank much higher than lower middle of the MCU pack vs those other films.

The comparison to Schwarzenegger is not apt without more specifics. And Arnold was bland, but the scripts worked around it. He was not asked to be a profound character but merely represent pure strength in simple action movies. He was not presented as some sort of complex character and was not praised by the critics for representing a movement of any sort. He, along with Stallone, Van Damme and others, were just action heroes. And they were often temporarily defeated and beaten before overcoming whatever obstacle was set before them. But the key point is this: NONE OF THESE ACTORS WERE PRESENTED AS PORTRAYING TRANSCENDENT CHARACTERS IN NEED OF CONSISTENT PRAISE. The characters were always seen and acknowledged as entertaining and exaggerated.

I sincerely just don't see that this is actually any different at all. Arnold's characters are exactly the same as what we're discussing here... to the point that one of his BEST films 'Last Action Hero' is a literal EXAMINATION of the kind of hero worship people gave to characters like him... and then goes about actually giving that character growth... or Predator! Another of his best, in which the action hero trope is systematically deconstructed.

And the creation of "the strong female character" is precisely what Femina criticizes, which is why I agree. "The strong female character" is the result of Femina's criticism: "bad writing, lax plotting, poor characterization". It's not the actress' fault, it's due to a bad script/plot/direction. I may be wrong, but I sense Femina is adding a non-existent misogynistic element to the argument. A criticism of a move by the entertainment industry to promote, push and endorse "the strong female character" (as defined by the video, not literally female characters who are strong) is not a criticism of lead women in movies and series have strong qualities. I genuinely think we all want the same outcome: better stories with characters--male and female--worth caring about.

To sum it up, the :43 mark might say it best:

To this I'll only say that I don't actually attribute this to 'much' DELIBERATE misogyny. I think it'd be naïve to assume there is NONE. You don't get hate labeled at say, Brie Larson, so CAREFULLY scripted as to take her words out of context without someone who really REALLY just hates her in the pie somewhere... but I generally find individuals with actual intentional malice toward others are few and far between. The sort of 'sexism' I attribute to this particular subject... is more passive/systemic. People accepted Arnold as a flawless male character because society has never even once bothered to CHALLENGE that to any significant degree (save some of the examples I've mentioned above, but a few individual films don't create a 'movement'), thus no one ever NOTICES, vs the flawless female lead which society is clearly much less willing to let slide without notation. Why is that? What's the difference between the two? One is obviously that they are just different genders, ANOTHER reason could be/very often may well be that the film was just made better as what it is. Maybe people would have fewer problems with a bland strong female character if the film she's in just SCREAMS cheesypop grindhouse 'intentional' timewaster... idk. But I NEVER see those things on trail, or in the headlines, cause they don't sell to the Youtube algorithm the same way criticizing the 'strong female character' does... and as we know it's all about the clicks. So my general OVERALL opinion on the matter remains that I feel the backlash against this character trope more often than not masks discussion of what is ACTUALLY wrong with the projects at more imperative fundamental levels of film making by overanalyzing a SYMPTOM of the real problems.

Perhaps we are differing in how we see the action movies of the likes of Schwarzenegger, Stallone and others in comparison to today's promotion of the "strong female character" (at this point I feel we should just abbreviate it to "SFC"). Several times those characters were indeed presented as flawless (Commando, for just one example). But everyone knew and acknowledged this was just an absurd representation and just a bubblegum movie. Predator was a fun movie because of the somewhat unique villain and the challenge for the heroes. But at no point were these movies and characters heralded and defended the way the modern SFC movies are being promoted. I think that is what causes some to feel a sense of frustration with Hollywood and Disney's current moves.

But to perhaps move to more of a common ground, which female heroes are well presented and come across in a good light? A few that come to mind from are Hilary Swank's boxer in Million Dollar Baby, Linda Hamilton's Sarah Connor in the first two Terminator movies, Daenerys Targaryen in GoT, Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon in Thelma and Louise, Sigourney Weaver's Ripley in Alien, and Jodie Foster's Clarice Starling in Silence of the Lambs (also liked her in Stealing Home, but that's a bit of a sappy nostalgic flick). Those come to mind because either the character was complex and changed/grew over the course of the story, or they faced a daunting villain/obstacle and were not able to easily overcome the villain/obstacle.
Though I am sure there are some more modern characters I might add to this list, I can think of many more who are the opposite of these characters--SFCs who lack an complex qualities, do not grow or change over the course of the story, or never seem to be at risk of anything bad happening. And indeed, this was the same for many of the 80s male action stars, but NONE of those movies and characters were lauded for being transcendent or representing "boy power" the way SFCs are consistently lauded for being transcendent and representing "girl power" (or the latest version/permutation of that term).

[Dazzle1]

But there are not really any male equvilents to Rey, Michael Burnham or Captain Marvel.

If they did they would suck and have sucked. The know it all boy genius trope is a good example. Nobody liked Wesley Crusher.

I think Dr. Who comes close to the know it all Gary Sue. When Batman is a Gary Sue he sucks real bad.

In fact Superman was a Gary Sue in the beginning and he was horribly boring. Watch the old Superman serials.

Point is all Gary and Mary Sue characters are bad.

Also we had strong female characters so there is no lacking of them. Linda Carter WW was a big mary Sue and was the strongest character in the line up of 1970s characters like 6 mil man, bionic woman, Bill Bixby Hulk etc. so we already had those strong females.

Dr Who makes mistakes all the time, so he is not a Gary Stue, even the most accomplished one the 4 Doctor.

Linda Carter's best season the first set in WW2 ,s he was not. She got captured frequently.


But you are right Mary Sue and Gary Stu are all bad. But I haven't seen any Gary Stus in a long time. Danel Craig's Bond was not one

[sugarcoater]

One other point: I appreciate you engaging in the discussion Femina. Though we see things differently and may not agree on some points, I like having a discussion and bouncing thoughts off different perspectives.

[sugarcoater]

But there are not really any male equvilents to Rey, Michael Burnham or Captain Marvel.

If they did they would suck and have sucked. The know it all boy genius trope is a good example. Nobody liked Wesley Crusher.

I think Dr. Who comes close to the know it all Gary Sue. When Batman is a Gary Sue he sucks real bad.

In fact Superman was a Gary Sue in the beginning and he was horribly boring. Watch the old Superman serials.

Point is all Gary and Mary Sue characters are bad.

Also we had strong female characters so there is no lacking of them. Linda Carter WW was a big mary Sue and was the strongest character in the line up of 1970s characters like 6 mil man, bionic woman, Bill Bixby Hulk etc. so we already had those strong females.

Dr Who makes mistakes all the time, so he is not a Gary Stue, even the most accomplished one the 4 Doctor.

Linda Carter's best season the first set in WW2 ,s he was not. She got captured frequently.


But you are right Mary Sue and Gary Stu are all bad. But I haven't seen any Gary Stus in a long time. Danel Craig's Bond was not one

To the point about Daniel Craig's Bond character, I see him as a bit of a symbol of the move towards creating characters with weaknesses. The James Bond of Sean Connery and Roger Moore (and to a slightly lesser extent, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan) were pretty much invulnerable and there was no suspense as to what would happen to them. The Daniel Craig character had a significant defeat in Casino Royale and his hardened edge was formed in large part from that defeat (his inability to save Vesper), and his eventual final defeat in the most recent film made the Bond movies more interesting than before. The first 20 or so were largely entertainment without real suspense; a few of the last ones were more engaging with the losses of significant characters.
I just refer to the Bond series as an extension of the previous point about Daniel Craig's Bond character creating more interest because of the lack of invulnerability and, occasionally, showing a more human side of a usually cold and stoic character. This same treatment for anyone from Ms. Marvel to Rey to Wonder Woman (the current one) would make for more compelling characters and storylines IMHO.

[Dazzle1]

But there are not really any male equvilents to Rey, Michael Burnham or Captain Marvel.

If they did they would suck and have sucked. The know it all boy genius trope is a good example. Nobody liked Wesley Crusher.

I think Dr. Who comes close to the know it all Gary Sue. When Batman is a Gary Sue he sucks real bad.

In fact Superman was a Gary Sue in the beginning and he was horribly boring. Watch the old Superman serials.

Point is all Gary and Mary Sue characters are bad.

Also we had strong female characters so there is no lacking of them. Linda Carter WW was a big mary Sue and was the strongest character in the line up of 1970s characters like 6 mil man, bionic woman, Bill Bixby Hulk etc. so we already had those strong females.

Dr Who makes mistakes all the time, so he is not a Gary Stue, even the most accomplished one the 4 Doctor.

Linda Carter's best season the first set in WW2 ,s he was not. She got captured frequently.


But you are right Mary Sue and Gary Stu are all bad. But I haven't seen any Gary Stus in a long time. Danel Craig's Bond was not one

To the point about Daniel Craig's Bond character, I see him as a bit of a symbol of the move towards creating characters with weaknesses. The James Bond of Sean Connery and Roger Moore (and to a slightly lesser extent, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan) were pretty much invulnerable and there was no suspense as to what would happen to them. The Daniel Craig character had a significant defeat in Casino Royale and his hardened edge was formed in large part from that defeat (his inability to save Vesper), and his eventual final defeat in the most recent film made the Bond movies more interesting than before. The first 20 or so were largely entertainment without real suspense; a few of the last ones were more engaging with the losses of significant characters.
I just refer to the Bond series as an extension of the previous point about Daniel Craig's Bond character creating more interest because of the lack of invulnerability and, occasionally, showing a more human side of a usually cold and stoic character. This same treatment for anyone from Ms. Marvel to Rey to Wonder Woman (the current one) would make for more compelling characters and storylines IMHO.

For me Craig was the gulliable Bond, he got played by almost everyone.

The closest superhero anology would be how several D.C animated films made Nightwing weak.

[Femina]

One other point: I appreciate you engaging in the discussion Femina. Though we see things differently and may not agree on some points, I like having a discussion and bouncing thoughts off different perspectives.

Mhhm. I definitely don't disagree with major consensus that a character with more complexity is just BETTER wholesale than one who can do no wrong. I didn't actually think there was that much 'wrong' with Ray until Rise of Skywalker. TFA ISN'T that bad, it's her introduction, they want you to like her, and hey we've got a WHOLE series coming for trials and tribulations right? I don't feel like Luke ever made a particularly 'useless ass' of himself in A New Hope either. It was the jumping off point and it was about showing who the characters are, what their strengths are etc. I also feel like TLJ's Rey isn't THAT bad either... she's flirting with the Dark Side a lot and I'm not convinced we weren't meant to think Luke was crazy for approaching her with caution, the movie was just poorly made and it came off that way... but as the series failed to do anything significant with any of her traits by the end of the trilogy, it was clear that by the end she hadn't really 'grown' as a person or learned any lessons, or even struggled particularly hard and thus... bad.......... and then think of all the OTHER problems inlaid within the new trilogy and the Rey problem just feels insignificant to me... like just another symptom of the primary problem that the trilogy lacked any fundamentals whatsoever.

I think I also feel like 'what kind of movie is it' matters a lot more than we sometimes give much thought to. We were talking about Disney before, and I'd say Moana qualifies as a character without any real major flaws (aside from just 'no one's taught me how to sail properly yet' which isn't REALLY a flaw) but a lot of the movie is more about how she AFFECTS the characters around her, telling a more 'mythical' tale about a person who shaped how this particular world works... I don't necessarily believe that a character's flaws inherently make them a good character either... the interaction between narrative and character is a complex animal, and I honestly think all you need is for them to be in sync in a production that knows what it is, what it's doing, and where it's going more than you need to avoid or latch onto any specific tropes and such. A Mary Sue whose WAAAAY too important to the plot is actually a much less egregious story crime than a protagonist who has no business being there at all.

[Mr. X]

I would add there were a lot of lame, mostly white male, hero types in the 1970s that always won, never lost, had the personality of a 2x4 etc. But that was the point - they were lame. They weren't popular shows.

[VegaTaxeca]

To concentrate on one of the mentioned movies: I do not understand the problems people have with Captain Marvel.
I love the movie (for me it's one of the best in the MCU), I love the character and I like the actress who played her. (I think, the only thing in the movie I am unhappy about, is that they do not openly acknowledge her relationship with Maria for what it quite obviously was.)
Regarding the character, I also believe many people do not really consider what crimes have been done to her by the Kree: They stole her memories, they changed her body, they kidnapped her, they indoctrinated her with Kree anti-feeling theories, they invaded her mind and partially mind-washed her and thereby forced her to be part of an attepted genocide. All of this over a period of six years. Imho it is no wonder that Carol does not act exactly like a "normal" human in that situation would, especially adding in her powers which she does not really understand herself at first.

[Femina]

To concentrate on one of the mentioned movies: I do not understand the problems people have with Captain Marvel.
I love the movie (for me it's one of the best in the MCU), I love the character and I like the actress who played her. (I think, the only thing in the movie I am unhappy about, is that they do not openly acknowledge her relationship with Maria for what it quite obviously was.)
Regarding the character, I also believe many people do not really consider what crimes have been done to her by the Kree: They stole her memories, they changed her body, they kidnapped her, they indoctrinated her with Kree anti-feeling theories, they invaded her mind and partially mind-washed her and thereby forced her to be part of an attepted genocide. All of this over a period of six years. Imho it is no wonder that Carol does not act exactly like a "normal" human in that situation would, especially adding in her powers which she does not really understand herself at first.

It's cause only Chris Even's is allowed to be Marvel's perfectly good and perfectly competent boi!

There's also an illogical assumption that she's never challenged or defeated despite LITERALLY being in restraints twice... that's the weakest card pulled against the film.

The main issue them loud youtubers had with it is that there's girl power stuff in it, and like that final "I have nothing to prove to you" remark seemed to offend some men whom I guess must have been really empathetic with that lying, controlling, manipulative Kree man and believed she DID owe it to fist fight him for some reason or other xD.... that and like, splicing her words out of context to make her sound like a racist... it was LOUD though... the youtube alt media machine really ripped the film a new one in a way they completely failed to inflict on Thor: The Dark World despite that film being actual offensively smelly garbage.

Captain Marvel could have been a lot better is the thing. It's VERY middle of the pack... but it's MIDDLE of the pack that is complained about more than the WORST films in all the MCU. A proper script could have really made that 'standing up' montage hit with the same power and competence is the shots were filmed. We really NEEDED to see proper flashbacks, probably with all of them ending with her being knocked down/cut back to the story... then the ending sequence of her always 'getting back up' would land stronger. The film has it's pacing issues and the 'amnesiac' character trope is ALWAYS a double edged sword the sharpest end dangling toward it's wielder because it ultimately provides your protagonist less time in the film to be themselves and prove themselves and thus demands an astoundingly competent script to pull off in a way that feels satisfying to most people. Realistically Brie didn't get to play 'Carol Danvers' until like... the last half hour of the film... during the most action heavy parts where she's not really got much space at all to 'characterize'... and she was 'Vers' during essentially ALL the low key character building allotment. I wouldn't write an amnesiac character if a publisher BEGGED me to for many of these reasons unless the point of my story was for the amnesiac to let their old self die and to BECOME the new person I've been writing about.

[joejanus]

I might not object to the film at all, but I'll never watch one where all the publicity, advertising, and actors tell me how much they saved the world by filming it.

A good writer doesn't do that. I'm on the opposite end of politics from the "politically correct"--a phrase borrowed from the mass murderer Chairman Mao. Dalton Trumbo was a dyed in the wool true-believer Communist, but he wrote some great scripts. Aaron Sorkin is a total leftist but his A Few Good Men gives the Jack Nicholson character one of the great conservative speeches of all time. And he doesn't make fun of it or have the other characters sneer at it. He lets the plot and the consequences speak for themselves.

I might have seen and maybe even enjoyed the female Ghostbusters movie if they hadn't insisted that by buying a ticket, I was empowering all women, supporting abortion, rolling back global warming, saving the baby seals or something else. It makes me throw up a little in my mouth when a commercial paid for by my tax dollars comes on, celebrating how "green" we all need to be, so we can all just sing kumbaya. At least this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guJ8NvKw-6k was innocent as well as vapid. The difference in the Arnold Schwarzenegger, Dolph Lundgren, Chuck Norris movies was they didn't try to tell us we saved the world by watching them.

Wear your Che t-shirts, and I'll just shake my head and avoid you, but call me Hitler while you're quoting Mao, and I'll try to restrain myself to just praying for your enlightenment and your soul.

[shevek]

I have an interjection. How many of these Strong Female Characters aren't even that strong, but mostly, like, just talk about food and clothing, and taking selfies, and are probably morally ambiguous anyway, because, like, do-gooders are so boring, m'kay?

And they're depicted that way because that is *actually* how a subsantial amount of women do act. I've seen it many times, and I'm sure a substantial amount of women writers are like that as well (though not all, of course). And as a result, as per that now-famous Lego toys experiment, the female writers quite often, instead of writing a hero that they aspire to be, write *their own personality* into the story...somehow thinking that self-insertion is what makes the character "strong" and "believable". That might work a few times in episodes of, say, Sex and the City, but overall, it doesn't work when dealing with superpowered characters - it just makes them petty, mundane and narcissistic, when they should be above such concerns.

Here's an example of a cosplayer we met in Hershey, re-enacting a scene with Harley and Ivy from the cartoon, and she's really into this aspect of the character. This is not "superheroes". This is two women living together in an apartment on a sitcom. I would say "Two Broke Girls" except that they probably couldn't afford Thai food.

[Femina]

I might not object to the film at all, but I'll never watch one where all the publicity, advertising, and actors tell me how much they saved the world by filming it.

A good writer doesn't do that. I'm on the opposite end of politics from the "politically correct"--a phrase borrowed from the mass murderer Chairman Mao. Dalton Trumbo was a dyed in the wool true-believer Communist, but he wrote some great scripts. Aaron Sorkin is a total leftist but his A Few Good Men gives the Jack Nicholson character one of the great conservative speeches of all time. And he doesn't make fun of it or have the other characters sneer at it. He lets the plot and the consequences speak for themselves.

I might have seen and maybe even enjoyed the female Ghostbusters movie if they hadn't insisted that by buying a ticket, I was empowering all women, supporting abortion, rolling back global warming, saving the baby seals or something else. It makes me throw up a little in my mouth when a commercial paid for by my tax dollars comes on, celebrating how "green" we all need to be, so we can all just sing kumbaya. At least this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guJ8NvKw-6k was innocent as well as vapid. The difference in the Arnold Schwarzenegger, Dolph Lundgren, Chuck Norris movies was they didn't try to tell us we saved the world by watching them.

Wear your Che t-shirts, and I'll just shake my head and avoid you, but call me Hitler while you're quoting Mao, and I'll try to restrain myself to just praying for your enlightenment and your soul.

Movie's don't do that!? The f'k are you on about!? Movies have been doing EXACTLY that since the dawn of film making. You know the visual medium doesn't exist SOELEY to entertain and never did. Exactly the same as the written and audio mediums. It's your own prerogative if you allowed yourself to be fooled into believing that no film is allowed to talk about or broach themes 'too real' or 'too politick' or whatever. You're WRONG if you think no action film of the 80's had something to say. It's perfectly valid to say, I feel like films today aren't SUBTLE enough with their messaging, but a good writer DOES do that, because a good writer knows their story needs to be ABOUT something... and the best thing for your story to be about is something that resonates with, and may teach people about, reality. Jesus you brought up 'a few good men' and praised it and it's EXACTLY that! A film exposing the absurdity and madness of the legal system as it pertains to members of the armed forces... and they are all ABSOLUTELY sneering at Jack Nicholson after his outburst. They're all DISGUSTED with him and ashamed that they've allowed the man the power and position he has acquired... that's......

No... no... you know what. It's not worth it.

[joejanus]

I don't disagree with your argument, just your examples. All good stories are about people. If you want to send a message, get Western Union as Sam Goldwyn said. The theme is much more powerful if the character's lives demonstrate it, rather than their voices preach it.

Watch the scene in A Few Good Men again. No one in the courtroom is DISGUSTED with Nicholson's character. Some are embarrassed, some, like Cruise's character, are trying to feel good at having proved what they needed to prove, but struggling all the same with what they just did for the greater good as it were.

Please don't try to save the world. That's what leads to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. Just be kind to the people you meet and try to understand them. Take off the paranoid glasses that make you see everyone as an enemy until they prove otherwise. Most people just want to get along. If we fall short, a gentle prodding works much better than a taser and a mobbing. A la lanterne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%80_la_lanterne is no motto to live by.

[Femina]

Please don't try to save the world. That's what leads to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. Just be kind to the people you meet and try to understand them. Take off the paranoid glasses that make you see everyone as an enemy until they prove otherwise. Most people just want to get along. If we fall short, a gentle prodding works much better than a taser and a mobbing. A la lanterne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%80_la_lanterne is no motto to live by.

I mean this is a bit melodramatic in THIS particular conversation xD as no one makes a feminist film espousing it's actually 'SAVING THE WOOOOORLD!!!!' but I HAVE to ask now you've brought it up... Who STOPS Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot then if no one should try to save the world? If a LOT of people didn't go and save the world we'd all be Germans now... and most of us SECOND or THIRD class Germans. Apathy and complacency are the REASONS Hitler came to power. MANY MANY films that have messages to push, do so with a firm eye on our history, and work to ensure we never FORGET history. You wait apathetically for Hitler to take over half of Europe and you just lazily allowed him to murder a lot of people basically cause... what? We didn't feel like it? We didn't want politics in our movies? I don't think these parallels converge. NO movie being made today considers itself a cure for NAZI GERMANY xD. A few of them take a bit of impotent REVENGE against the villains of the past, but none of those espouse to be saving the world, just condemning individuals who lived in it.

If you're watching movies and extrapolating 'they think this is world changing man!!!' you're probably reading too much into it... particularly if you're worried that somehow the Female lead Ghostbuster's is gonna bring us to Nazi Germany 2.0

[Dazzle1]

I would add there were a lot of lame, mostly white male, hero types in the 1970s that always won, never lost, had the personality of a 2x4 etc. But that was the point - they were lame. They weren't popular shows.

Since the 70s were brought up, lets look at the scuessful franchise of the era, the Bionic shows

Six Million Dollar Man and the Bionic Woman, both strong characters, but they had flaws.

Which made the Bionic wedding so gratfying as the conclusion

[GWalb]

There is a world of difference between a "strong female" and 'bitch', both in fiction and in real life. We find a good example in Spencer's "Faerie Queen' where Britomart is a strong female while Radigund is a bitch.

[shevek]

There is a world of difference between a "strong female" and 'bitch', both in fiction and in real life. We find a good example in Spencer's "Faerie Queen' where Britomart is a strong female while Radigund is a bitch.

Yeah, but Radigund is the villainess, a "wicked-slave mistress". So of course she is a bitch, she's supposed to be.
"Britomart" these days just sounds like a corporate brand, perhaps a big box store that you shop at, like Tesco.

The difference is that before 2014 (or thereabouts), the bitches were the villains.
Now, they're the heroines (or at least, the main protagonists) thanks to the overarching postmodernist approach where "nothing matters" anyway.

Speaking of Radegund, it's interesting to note that in real life, her near-namesake was a Thuringian princess who was also an extreme ascetic. She was a vegan and a teetotaler, and also apparently tortured herself, binding herself with shackles and branding herself with irons. Kinky S&M stuff to be sure.

Basically sounds like an early ultra-pious version of a social justice warrior. Back then, it was the puritans who were the annoying cultural assholes, but many of them wound up being sainted. Now, it's the annoying cultural assholes who are the puritans, and they are sainted while signaling their holy virtues on Twitter.

[Mr. X]

I would add there were a lot of lame, mostly white male, hero types in the 1970s that always won, never lost, had the personality of a 2x4 etc. But that was the point - they were lame. They weren't popular shows.

Since the 70s were brought up, lets look at the scuessful franchise of the era, the Bionic shows

Six Million Dollar Man and the Bionic Woman, both strong characters, but they had flaws.

Which made the Bionic wedding so gratfying as the conclusion

Michael Knight is a good example of the boring, quintessential swell guy. The tech porn made the show interesting. I guess Buck Rodgers could be as well. But there were a dozen or so "swell guy" pilots and one year shows that were bad characters.

But I do think men and women are different and they are not interchangeable. That there is a draw to a stoic, strong male who comes in and wins and you just know he'll win. The original Superman was an allegory for big gov coming in to stop criminals and corruption.

Now some females can pull off the "always winner" vibe. Xena is a grand example of this.

THIS is to me the perfect example of a strong female character. She has NO IDEA what she is fighting, she is out of her league but she believable tanks Doomsday, which is a massive feat, and takes a pounding for it. And Superman is not boring in this because he too gets trashed.

[bushwackerbob]

One trend that I witnessed started in the late 80's when the sitcom Roseanne debuted. It set that old fashioned trope of strong male father and supportive wife and mother on its face. Roseanne was the strong and dominant force in that family while Dan, the father was the supportive background strong, more silent type. Television, being a very much copycat industry sought to duplicate that dynamic with a number of shows, which is why we got a slew of shows with idiot, know nothing dads and mothers who were the real brains of the family.

I love strong female characters, I just reject this trope that I sometimes see that we have to make supporting characters weaker or more subservient in comparison.

[Femina]

Gonna leave this here cause I think it's a better and more objective (and more respectful) examination of the 'phenomena' than the Critical Drinker is capable of



Modern movies don't all suck, and it's not because of the 'strong female character' The problem, as always, is bad writting.

[shevek]

Gonna leave this here cause I think it's a better and more objective (and more respectful) examination of the 'phenomena' than the Critical Drinker is capable of



Modern movies don't all suck, and it's not because of the 'strong female character' The problem, as always, is bad writting.

I agree, but it's pretty much what this thread has been saying all along, anyway.

The Strong Female Character has been mostly written wrong since the "Woke Era" began, because the writers from the generation of participation trophies mostly don't know how to write believable, complex strong female characters who sometimes fail, seem weak, or need help.

Thus, whereas in previous eras, a Strong Female Character would seem complex and layered (e.g. Ripley, or Xena), now they are usually very bland and one-dimensional. Nobody is entertained by that, and so many of these movies get lambasted by a significant portion of their potential audiences.

[Femina]

I agree, but it's pretty much what this thread has been saying all along, anyway.

The Strong Female Character has been mostly written wrong since the "Woke Era" began, because the writers from the generation of participation trophies mostly don't know how to write believable, complex strong female characters who sometimes fail, seem weak, or need help.

Thus, whereas in previous eras, a Strong Female Character would seem complex and layered (e.g. Ripley, or Xena), now they are usually very bland and one-dimensional. Nobody is entertained by that, and so many of these movies get lambasted by a significant portion of their potential audiences.

The 'woke' era. Lol.

I disagree. I think there's the SAME amount of good examples of the 'strong female character' we just have MORE movies overall that star women, thus there are also more BAD examples of female characters. It's easy to forget that the past has many a shitty written female character. It's just nostalgia to forget the crappy stuff from the past and to give the crappy stuff that exists today more power and influence than it actually has.

[Mr. X]

Yes there is a woke era just like there was a moral majority era. Its dying. Good riddance. Same busy bodies, different podium.

[Femina]

Yes there is a woke era just like there was a moral majority era. Its dying. Good riddance. Same busy bodies, different podium.

I repeat