Female Characters

[AlinaX]

I tried to answer your question and feel like you derailed your own thread again and I got hit by the train.

Studios invest in sexy. Gender-swap Vader and you would get a life support cyber-suit with pronounced breasts and a pretty-if-artificial face.

 

[SimonDoom]

I don't think anyone has derailed anything. I think people just have different opinions.

I think it's very interesting to see how different people's reactions are to the Star Wars movies, and the characters. Many moviegoers get deeply attached to movie characters. I don't, really. It's just entertainment -- especially stuff like Star Wars. It's not The Godfather.

My basic take on Star Wars, as somebody who saw the very first movie as a young teen, is that it shouldn't be taken seriously, it was never meant to be taken seriously, and that a big problem that happened during the years between ROTJ and TPM is that the myth of Star Wars became too seriously taken and George Lucas forgot how to make good movies, and he tried to make the prequel trilogy too serious. For me, it flopped. For some others, it worked.

I liked the fact that in Force Awakens the new Luke character (Rey) is a woman. I thought it was interesting, and it worked, and the actress was good. But the screenwriters didn't make her character as fun or interesting as they could have.

One of the strengths of the original Star Wars movie is the character of Leia, because she's a princess, but she's also a smartass, which goes against type. She has a lot of great lines, and she's brave, and she's not at all confident that her rescuers have any idea what they are doing. There's that great scene where Luke tells her he has come to rescue her, and she acts more skeptical than grateful. There's nothing like that deftness and lightness of character portrayal in the final trilogy with Rey. Everything is portentous and heavy. That was one of my beefs about all the movies after the first trilogy. They're just not as fun.

 

[stickygirl]

I don't think anyone has derailed anything. I think people just have different opinions.

I think it's very interesting to see how different people's reactions are to the Star Wars movies, and the characters. Many moviegoers get deeply attached to movie characters. I don't, really. It's just entertainment -- especially stuff like Star Wars. It's not The Godfather.

My basic take on Star Wars, as somebody who saw the very first movie as a young teen, is that it shouldn't be taken seriously, it was never meant to be taken seriously, and that a big problem that happened during the years between ROTJ and TPM is that the myth of Star Wars became too seriously taken and George Lucas forgot how to make good movies, and he tried to make the prequel trilogy too serious. For me, it flopped. For some others, it worked.

I liked the fact that in Force Awakens the new Luke character (Rey) is a woman. I thought it was interesting, and it worked, and the actress was good. But the screenwriters didn't make her character as fun or interesting as they could have.

One of the strengths of the original Star Wars movie is the character of Leia, because she's a princess, but she's also a smartass, which goes against type. She has a lot of great lines, and she's brave, and she's not at all confident that her rescuers have any idea what they are doing. There's that great scene where Luke tells her he has come to rescue her, and she acts more skeptical than grateful. There's nothing like that deftness and lightness of character portrayal in the final trilogy with Rey. Everything is portentous and heavy. That was one of my beefs about all the movies after the first trilogy. They're just not as fun.

Agreed, though the versions I first saw of the original series were on video tape before it was remastered where you could see the black masking and almost the fishing line on space-craft that made it adorable. Leia had great lines, but Rey just got desperate expressions and that tedious Disney lecturing 'I might be a girl but I can kick ass' that felt like a school's equality lecture - it was totally hammed up and dumbed down for the Disney audience. Meh not my thing - Sorry guys if I'm pissing on your bonfire.

My thing would be The Martian and being torn between Matt Damon and Mackenzie Davis who were both so hot Sorry, what is this thread again. Oh yea. Half the crew of the Hermes were women = kerching

 

[pumpkindice]

I tried to answer your question and feel like you derailed your own thread again and I got hit by the train.

I really do apologize to you for that, I know I'm a terrible person who should never be allowed to interact with polite society. I don't know how it is that I always seem to make a mess of things, just that I always seem to. I'm so sorry for throwing you under the bus, or in front of the train, or, I'm so confused. What am I apologizing for again?

I all seriousness, I am sorry for derailing this thread, especially when I specifically promised I would try to stay on topic.

 

[pumpkindice]

My basic take on Star Wars, as somebody who saw the very first movie as a young teen, is that it shouldn't be taken seriously, it was never meant to be taken seriously, and that a big problem that happened during the years between ROTJ and TPM is that the myth of Star Wars became too seriously taken and George Lucas forgot how to make good movies, and he tried to make the prequel trilogy too serious. For me, it flopped. For some others, it worked.

Here's where I disagree with that. I think if all Star Wars had ever been was a revolution in special effects technology, than it would have been amazing for it's time, but it wouldn't still be relevant today, when the technology is orders of magnitude better.

Avatar was a breathtaking movie for it's time, a leap forward in special effects technology, but it's not remembered today as one of the great movies ever because the plot was Fern Gully in Space.

The plot of Star Wars is, essentially, taken from the pages of Joseph Campbell. The plot of Star Wars is as old as the human race gets, older than movies, older than tv, and even older than books. It goes back to the oral tradition that is seen in cultures all over the world. The same monomyth that dominates ancient cultures from antiquity is the backbone of the Star Wars stories.

Star Wars has the veneer of sci-fi, but it's not really sci-fi, it's really comparative mythology in space. Padme, for example, is the name of a Hindu Queen from the Mahabharata, who assumes that name when she is on the run from her enemies and she has to hide and mingle with people and not be uncovered as a queen. The story from antiquity has it's direct reflection in the Phantom Menace, the high level plot points are translated to the modern movie, and Lucas kept the ancient name to boot.

This is just one example, but Star Wars is littered with them and they aren't hard to find. Lucas set out to tell a story using a near universal template that was created by story-tellers refining the technique over thousands of years, until, ultimately, the monomyth is the result. Lucas doesn't get the credit he deserves because he made it look so easy, but as the Disney SW films show us, using the technique is anything but easy.

 

[ElectricBlue]

This is just one example, but Star Wars is littered with them and they aren't hard to find. Lucas set out to tell a story using a near universal template that was created by story-tellers refining the technique over thousands of years, until, ultimately, the monomyth is the result. Lucas doesn't get the credit he deserves because he made it look so easy, but as the Disney SW films show us, using the technique is anything but easy.

Lucas acknowledged, decades ago, that the main influences on the first Star Wars movie were Hollywood westerns and Japanese samurai movies, amongst others.

The scene of the stormtroopers in their rank and file is a direct lift from Triumph of the Will - not the best piece of cinema, ideologically, to have in your working notes, but nevertheless, visually spectacular.

Lucas, being a film buff, took good notes, plugged into some useful archetypes, and kept it simple. I don't know what Disney did - the last trilogy became a bit like some folk here, wondering how to appeal to every reader. I didn't even bother with the final movie, even though I thought Rey was an excellent character.

 

[SimonDoom]

My thing would be The Martian and being torn between Matt Damon and Mackenzie Davis who were both so hot Sorry, what is this thread again. Oh yea. Half the crew of the Hermes were women = kerching

I love Jessica Chastain! She was the commander of the Hermes and she rescued Mark and she was great. I liked the thread in the movie about how much he had to listen to her disco music selections over and over when he was trapped on Mars.

She's hot, too.

Now THAT was a fun and well-executed and smart sci-fi movie. I thought the book was great and the movie did it justice, and there were some strong female characters. I also have a thing for Kristin Wiig.

 

[pumpkindice]

Lucas, being a film buff, took good notes, plugged into some useful archetypes, and kept it simple. I don't know what Disney did - the last trilogy became a bit like some folk here, wondering how to appeal to every reader. I didn't even bother with the final movie, even though I thought Rey was an excellent character.

When I was a young kid, I once heard what the true genius of Joe Montana was; he had the ability to make extremely complex things LOOK easy, when they were actually very difficult. I think that's the best description of any real genius, you see someone do something that others can't seem to replicate and you think "well, how hard can it be?" What you described Lucas as having accomplished is actually extremely difficult, and that's why Disney has not come close to being able to replicate it.

I'm one of the people who liked the prequels and hated the sequels. I liked the prequels because I recognized them as Star Wars films and I liked what they had going for them. They were far from perfect movies, but they had the magic of Lucas to them.

I think Rey is one of the biggest problems with the sequel trilogy, see my earlier post in this thread comparing Rey to Yuna from Final Fantasy 10. Yuna is what I wish Rey had been. The biggest issue I have with Rey is that she's a terrible character. Having strengths is fine, being good at stuff isn't a problem, what is a problem is having no weaknesses. If Rey is able to beat Kylo Ren with no training at the end of the first movie, then what is the point of making two more films? A good character is defined by their flaws, and the plot is a journey we go on with a character to examine those flaws and overcome them. That's what makes a character relatable and likeable, without flaws and short-comings, the story doesn't have stakes since we never really feel like the protagonists is threatened.

 

[shakna]

I have felt, for a long time, that if a story involved a woman being disfigured in the way Anakin was in revenge of the sith, and then locked into a giant, black metal suit for the rest of her life, like Anakin was, that mainstream audiences would not accept that kind of thing happening to a woman. I think studio execs believe that notion too, and that it's an unwritten rule of how you write female characters: you have to use kid gloves more often, and there are things you can't do to them.

I'll agree with you that Hollywood does tend to use kid gloves when it comes to disfiguring females.

However, I won't agree with you or them that it's necessary. At all. Mainstream audiences don't really care. If you disfigure someone, then they're going to feel the same about it, regardless of whether or not they have a penis or tits. (That's before we look at Annie's actual crematorium scene - where most people barely had any kind of emotional response beyond laughter, from memory.)

Unfortunately, Hollywood seems fixated on two things. Firstly, avoid hurting any female lead. Secondly, if you must hurt the female lead... Then you're only allowed to do so via rape. Both of those things are crap writing and trivialise people from the real world.

I don't think anyone would feel too uncomfortable if Ripley came away from Aliens, with a missing limb. I don't think anyone would have a major problem if Sarah Connor got burned. I doubt V for Vendetta would have appealed less if they did more than just shave Evie's head. Katniss wouldn't appeal any less if you paralysed her in the end. Alice wouldn't be less of a star of Resident Evil if you dared to put her through the meatgrinder. Million Dollar Baby would have been no less compelling if they had shown the full extent of boxing injuries.

 

[AlinaX]

How about V? A once-beautiful female MC now masked to conceal her ravaged body...

 

[Winter_Fare]

BBC Dracula maimed Lucy Westenra in the most HORRIFYING way (that still gives me nightmares)

 

[pumpkindice]

I'll agree with you that Hollywood does tend to use kid gloves when it comes to disfiguring females.

However, I won't agree with you or them that it's necessary. At all.

One of the most annoying things about internet arguments is the strawman fallacy, when you argue against what you think someone said, versus what they actually said.

I never said disfiguring female characters was necessary, never at all. That was quite literally never a point I made, and I actually agree with you, completely, that it is unnecessary. I love the character of Yuna from Final Fantasy 10, and Yuna is what I wish Rey's story had been. Yuna was never physically harmed in the course of her story, and it was a great character arc.

Yuna's story was written by writers who are the most gigantic George Lucas fan boys on the planet earth: Japanese JRPG developers. Yuna's story was nothing less than an attempt to write a story about a female Jedi; if you follow the plot, the obviousness of this attempt is there, all the way down to how, when Yuna stands before a tribunal of Yevon to answer for heresy, she echoes Luke Skywalker to the core: "I am a summoner, like my father before me." Change one word, and it is Luke Skywalker. That was intentional, and the point.

My point was that you cannot disfigure a female character the same way that you can to a male character, that Hollywood plays its female character with, as you put it, kid gloves, for a very good reason: mainstream audiences will react badly to that portrayal. Audience reacting badly = loss at the box office. Hollywood plays it safe, to an extreme.

So, to recap, my point was that you cannot do to a female protagonist what happened to Anakin Skywalker in Revenge of the Sith. My point WAS NOT that all female protagonists (or male protagonists) have to have their limbs cut off and be burned to a crisp like Anakin was.

I don't think anyone would feel too uncomfortable if Ripley came away from Aliens, with a missing limb. I don't think anyone would have a major problem if Sarah Connor got burned. I doubt V for Vendetta would have appealed less if they did more than just shave Evie's head. Katniss wouldn't appeal any less if you paralysed her in the end. Alice wouldn't be less of a star of Resident Evil if you dared to put her through the meatgrinder. Million Dollar Baby would have been no less compelling if they had shown the full extent of boxing injuries.

Agree with you, 100%.

 

[shakna]

So, to recap, my point was that you cannot do to a female protagonist what happened to Anakin Skywalker in Revenge of the Sith. My point WAS NOT that all female protagonists (or male protagonists) have to have their limbs cut off and be burned to a crisp like Anakin was.

I'm afraid I think you responded straight past me.
I didn't mean to even imply that disfigurement is necessary or whatever tangent you just went down.

My point was this - whilst Hollywood doesn't tend to, you absolutely can do to a female protagonist what happened to Anakin Skywalker in Revenge of the Sith. Hence the long list of examples where if it happened, I think we both agree it would be a non-issue.

 

[pumpkindice]

My point was this - whilst Hollywood doesn't tend to, you absolutely can do to a female protagonist what happened to Anakin Skywalker in Revenge of the Sith. Hence the long list of examples where if it happened, I think we both agree it would be a non-issue.

Emphasis on "if", because my point was that while Hollywood tends to be fine with men having what happened to Anakin happen to them, Hollywood also resolutely refuses to let that same thing happen to women, if it can possibly be avoided. I don't think that's just Hollywood playing it safe (although I think that's a big part of the equation), I also think Hollywood has done the research and knows what it can and can't get away with.

I remember reading an interview with Lana Wachowski a few months ago, about how, in the original matrix movie, "the red pill" was a metaphor for the trans experience, and how she and her sister wanted to be much more overt about that metaphor, but could not be due to the sensibilities of mainstream audiences at the time. Now, it makes complete sense to me that the red pill could be a metaphor for the trans experience, I totally get that, and in hindsight, it's pretty obvious. However, I never got that until she explicitly mentioned it.

If she had done that more explicitly, she absolutely could have found a small crowd of people who it would resonate with, however, I remember what mass audiences were like in 1999; if she and her sister had been more explicit, it would have absolutely sunk their movie.

I think making it explicit would play a lot better with mass audiences in 2022 than it did in 1999, but I still think there's a large portion of the public who is just not down for that stuff in their films. Film makers are pushing that particular envelop, however. There is a movement for more inclusion in cinema. What I am not seeing is a movement for more diversity in which characters get the Anakin Skywalker treatment, which is the reason why I suspect that Hollywood will continue to treat women with kid gloves, while at the same time furthering empowering depictions of women in media. It's quite the gordian knot, since maintaining this contradiction comes with a price.

 

[shakna]

I don't think that's just Hollywood playing it safe (although I think that's a big part of the equation), I also think Hollywood has done the research and knows what it can and can't get away with.

Before the creation of the ratings board, we did actually regularly see women treated to quite a lot of disfigurement at the hands of Hollywood (Like "A Woman's Face", 1941 or "Eyes without a Face", 1960). Including leading ladies (who were more common pre-ratings as well).

I think Hollywood's run to safety has absolutely nothing to do with the intended audience. They need to get their very expensive films approved by a very small set of individuals with incredibly strong held beliefs. People who have been known to get out tape measures to check the size of a breast that is only visible for a single frame, and people who count the number of various swear words. Those are the people Hollywood has to ensure their film doesn't offend, and those people are extremely sensitive.

The MPAA do actually have separate guidelines for violence towards women and men. Most of the violence towards men can push the ratings upwards. Most of the violence towards women makes you leap to the horrible situation of "NC-17" where you basically can't sell your film anymore. Almost every single one of the Saw films was originally rated NC-17 for "violence against women", as well as "gratuitous violence". Note that those two reasons are separate to the ratings board. Reworking the films to be "R", instead, generally just involved cutting down the scenes involving actresses.

The MPAA are... Much harsher than overseas rating boards. Much more sensitive to just about everything, and much more conservative in their policies, and it shows. "La mala educación" received an NC-17 rating in the US in 2004, for daring to have "depictions of homosexual sex". Whilst in Australia it got an "MA-15+" and in the UK it got "15" (Both boards have an equivalent to "R", but it didn't even reach that level for them). The MPAA are extremely conservative.

Hollywood knows they can't reach an audience at all, unless they first get by the angry folks at the MPAA. That means less violence if an actress is in a scene.