Gender Reversal. Does it work?

smash

Listening to George Hook drone on yesterday evening about a feminist group who were trying to promote gender reversal on popular TV shows. Female spy's, female action heroes etc etc. There were a few texts asking questions like what would happen if the likes of the little mermaid was remade with a boy instead of the girl and of course George went off into a tangent and asked what would have happened if Pamela Anderson's character in Baywatch was recast as a man. He completely missed the point that in Baywatch there was eye candy for both sexes!

But anyway, do you think gender reversed roles on popular TV shows or movies would work? I'm of the opinion that 90%+ of the time they wouldn't. They're popular for a reason, and changing them just wouldn't have the same outcome.

Crooked Jack

I dunno, I cant imagine Starbuck as anything other than a woman now.

eviltwin

Do you mean changing existing characters as in the suggestion that James Bond be played by a woman or just female superheroes and that kind of thing? I don't believe a character that is known as male/female needs to be changed and won't work as people know and love that character as they are but see no problem with introducing new characters that go against the norm.

ancapailldorcha

eviltwin wrote: »

Do you mean changing existing characters as in the suggestion that James Bond be played by a woman or just female superheroes and that kind of thing? I don't believe a character that is known as male/female needs to be changed and won't work as people know and love that character as they are but see no problem with introducing new characters that go against the norm.

Thing is, a lot of companies think that it'll attract a new audience while keeping the current fans. Added to this is that the spiralling cost of film production has made them increasingly risk averse hence the like of Marvel changing Thor's gender instead of promoting Sif with her own comic.

smash

eviltwin wrote: »

Do you mean changing existing characters as in the suggestion that James Bond be played by a woman

This was one of the things they mentioned. :rolleyes:

Timberrrrrrrr

smash wrote: »

This was one of the things they mentioned. :rolleyes:

Jane Bond just doesn't have the same ring to it. Sure they made M a woman.

DoYouEvenLift

eviltwin wrote: »

Do you mean changing existing characters as in the suggestion that James Bond be played by a woman or just female superheroes and that kind of thing? I don't believe a character that is known as male/female needs to be changed and won't work as people know and love that character as they are but see no problem with introducing new characters that go against the norm.

I'd never want to see it happen but I honestly could see this being made because of the ridiculous "if men can do it, women can too" attitude currently entering Hollywood. It's just as unoriginal as the countless reboots and sequels.


"Bond. Jane Bond."

eviltwin

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Thing is, a lot of companies think that it'll attract a new audience while keeping the current fans. Added to this is that the spiralling cost of film production has made them increasingly risk averse hence the like of Marvel changing Thor's gender instead of promoting Sif with her own comic.

I don't agree with that. I'm all for them trying to attract female readers its a bit lazy to take a well known male character and turn him female. Why trade on a well known name, why not just create a brand new female character with all the traits Thor has.

Although in saying that in some cases it can work, the all male version of Swan Lake for example doesn't lose any of its impact for not having female dancers and I will be interested to see what the all female Ghostbusters is like.

ancapailldorcha

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

I'd never want to see it happen but I honestly could see this being made because of the ridiculous "if men can do it, women can too" attitude currently entering Hollywood.


"Bond. Jane Bond."

What's wrong with the "if men can do it, women can too" attitude? I'm against altering IPs in this way and would rather see new ones though.

DoYouEvenLift

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What's wrong with the "if men can do it, women can too" attitude? I'm against altering IPs in this way and would rather see new ones though.

Exactly what you followed with. Instead of innovating and coming up with strong, new concepts for female leads for people to enjoy they just do what's already been done and think having a female lead is revolutionary. I can picture the board rooms going like "We have a totally original idea to propose. How about we do James Bond with a mind blowingly unique take, something nobody would ever expect...A WOMAN!"

Sleepy

I can't think of an instance in which I'd approve of it. There's the perennial debates about having a female/black James Bond , a female Doctor Who regeneration etc. and to me, they're corruptions of the characters. A non-British, non-white, non-male James Bond is not James Bond. Make up your own story, it worked pretty well for the "Modern American Man" version of Bond when they made the Bourne movies.

The current re-making of Ghostbusters with an all female cast just tells me that the people involved are lazy hacks that are insulting Harold Ramis' memory instead of having the creativity to craft something as original as he and his co-stars did.

It's not as if there's no fiction out there with strong female leads that they could adapt for film. I'd personally *LOVE* to see Maisie Williams as Vin in a film version of Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn trilogy and I'd suspect it'd be a hit.

eviltwin

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Exactly what you followed with. Instead of innovating and coming up with strong, new concepts for female leads for people to enjoy they just do what's already been done and think having a female lead is revolutionary. I can picture the board rooms going like "We have a totally original idea to propose. How about we do James Bond with a mind blowingly unique take, something nobody would ever expect...A WOMAN!"

That's just laziness on the part of the film industry. I don't think any woman is calling out for established male characters to have a sex change, they just want more diversity in women on screen. There are already a lot of great female characters on television and in independent film and its about time Hollywood caught up.

Dravokivich

I watch Elementary and I still find the idea of Watson as a female character to be weird. She has very little substance and is no more than a pet for Sherlock.

ancapailldorcha

eviltwin wrote: »

That's just laziness on the part of the film industry. I don't think any woman is calling out for established male characters to have a sex change, they just want more diversity in women on screen. There are already a lot of great female characters on television and in independent film and its about time Hollywood caught up.

No, I've never heard a huge call for changing character's gender. It goes back to my point about the huge gamble companies take when making films. They want to play it as safe as possible hence the perfunctory token characters as opposed to actual diversity. White male characters have been the leads for so long that it's formulaic and any deviation constitutes a risk.

Potatoeman

smash wrote: »

Listening to George Hook drone on yesterday evening about a feminist group who were trying to promote gender reversal on popular TV shows. Female spy's, female action heroes etc etc. There were a few texts asking questions like what would happen if the likes of the little mermaid was remade with a boy instead of the girl and of course George went off into a tangent and asked what would have happened if Pamela Anderson's character in Baywatch was recast as a man. He completely missed the point that in Baywatch there was eye candy for both sexes!

But anyway, do you think gender reversed roles on popular TV shows or movies would work? I'm of the opinion that 90%+ of the time they wouldn't. They're popular for a reason, and changing them just wouldn't have the same outcome.

I think the most compelling characters are usually troubled and complex but they would probably complain about them portraying women in a negative light. So even though they claim they want it they would still criticise.

DoYouEvenLift

Potatoeman wrote: »

I think the most compelling characters are usually troubled and complex but they would probably complain about them portraying women in a negative light. So even though they claim they want it they would still criticise.

Imagine a female rust cohle lol

smash

Wonder Woman: last episode aired in 1979
Charlie's Angels: last episode aired in 1981 - Film reboot in 200 was pretty awful and got shíte reviews.

Just two examples of action shows containing strong female leads that didn't really work beyond the era of when they were new. I just think that in general, girls/women don't want to be 'superheros'. They want to be feckin Kim Kardashian or something.

Potatoeman

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Imagine a female rust cohle lol

Characters need to be relatable, interesting or appealing. Male characters in the largest/popular shows are usually driven by something so they are quite easy for both genders to relate to. Walter White from breaking bad for all his faults starts with good intentions. His motivations begining good make him an interesting character. Rust Cohle is driven and very intelligent.

Female characters need to follow the same standards but to be relatable to women at a certain age they need a family and she needs heavy involvement in their lives so it can change the type of show. If shes young and single then its usually not as relatable for men as her motivations frequently revolve around find love and without a driving factor that makes them interesting to men too they will not be as popular.

tritium

eviltwin wrote: »

That's just laziness on the part of the film industry. I don't think any woman is calling out for established male characters to have a sex change, they just want more diversity in women on screen.

Apart from doctor who, plenty of calls to regenerate one of the better fictional male role models into a woman, just because.....

limklad

smash wrote: »

Listening to George Hook drone on yesterday evening about a feminist group who were trying to promote gender reversal on popular TV shows. Female spy's, female action heroes etc etc. There were a few texts asking questions like what would happen if the likes of the little mermaid was remade with a boy instead of the girl and of course George went off into a tangent and asked what would have happened if Pamela Anderson's character in Baywatch was recast as a man. He completely missed the point that in Baywatch there was eye candy for both sexes!

But anyway, do you think gender reversed roles on popular TV shows or movies would work? I'm of the opinion that 90%+ of the time they wouldn't. They're popular for a reason, and changing them just wouldn't have the same outcome.

If they gender reverse Family law and social policies then Feminists be crying out sexism. The way Family law is right now they call it equal and fair.

I believe they tried gender roles reversal in the past, such as wonder woman, bionic woman and super girl been the main protector and hero. I believe they flopped from female audience point of view, just like many women sport magazines. Women and girls were not that interested other than feminists and horny boys and men.

pwurple

smash wrote: »

Wonder Woman: last episode aired in 1979
Charlie's Angels: last episode aired in 1981 - Film reboot in 200 was pretty awful and got shíte reviews.

Just two examples of action shows containing strong female leads that didn't really work beyond the era of when they were new.

Those are pretty good examples of what's wrong with female action heroes. Compare batman to wonder woman. Batman has a bit of grit, background, depth. Wonderwoman is essentially a skimpy outfit. Who the heck wants to watch an outfit every week? The characters need a good bit of suffering to hold anyone's interest for a prolonged time. Sometimes I think film/media industry has such an aversion to making a female character look vaguely unsexy for five minutes, that they make the character just plain boring, as she ends up completely one dimensional.

I just think that in general, girls/women don't want to be 'superheros'. They want to be feckin Kim Kardashian or something.

Obvious lazy generalisation there, but I'll bite anyway. Plenty of girls do want to be superheros, or at least mine does. She wants to be either Batman with a batmobile, or her own creation DaisyGirl... who turns the badguy's arms and legs into daisies.

Potatoeman

pwurple wrote: »

Those are pretty good examples of what's wrong with female action heroes. Compare batman to wonder woman. Batman has a bit of grit, background, depth. Wonderwoman is essentially a skimpy outfit. Who the heck wants to watch an outfit every week? The characters need a good bit of suffering to hold anyone's interest for a prolonged time. Sometimes I think film/media industry has such an aversion to making a female character look vaguely unsexy for five minutes, that they make the character just plain boring, as she ends up completely one dimensional.



Obvious lazy generalisation there, but I'll bite anyway. Plenty of girls do want to be superheros, or at least mine does. She wants to be either Batman with a batmobile, or her own creation DaisyGirl... who turns the badguy's arms and legs into daisies.

You should look into the creation of wonder woman its pretty interesting. The outfits are just a result of comic books aimed at young people so muscular men and attractive women. The whole gritty thing is new and only suits a few characters not everyone.

Maguined

Does it work? Well that depends on what the aims or goals of such a gender reversal are. Normally it seems to be about representation. That a lack of representation of demographics is damaging to the minority demographic not equally represented in whatever media.

I do not think it is the responsibility of private producers of a product to represent society fairly. Producers tailor their product to whatever demographic or market they feel is best, if your product is well received you are successful and if not you lose your time and money. If a producer wants to change their product to try to appeal to a wider demographic they are completely free to do so but I dislike it when they are criticised for not doing so. Expecting private for profit companies to risk their own money to try and make their product as representitive as possible for the benefit of society is unrealistic expecations. As an adult when I choose to purchase food from McDonalds I do not expect them or criticse them for not making their food as healthy as society needs, if I want healthy food I go elsewhere.

I also do not believe that a lack of representation is inherently damaging or that a large amount of representation is inherently better. I do not believe people consume media to be represented. When I buy a book it is not because I want the story to represent my ethnicity, race, gender or anything. I buy a book because I want to be entertained by an interesting story.

Amica

Sleepy wrote: »

I can't think of an instance in which I'd approve of it. There's the perennial debates about having a female/black James Bond , a female Doctor Who regeneration etc. and to me, they're corruptions of the characters. A non-British, non-white, non-male James Bond is not James Bond. Make up your own story, it worked pretty well for the "Modern American Man" version of Bond when they made the Bourne movies.

everybody's going on about about how ludicrous a female Bond would be, but what about Salt (Angelina Jolie)? Was that not about a female badass spy?

I just think that in general, girls/women don't want to be 'superheros'. They want to be feckin Kim Kardashian or something.

Yeah you've hit the nail on the head there. Little girls and grown women the world over aspire to be Kim Kardashian. That is the pinnacle of success for the entire gender. :rolleyes: Where's a face palm smiley when you need one?

to be relatable to women at a certain age they need a family and she needs heavy involvement in their lives

I don't think a female character needs heavy involvement in her family's lives (any more so than a male character does) for me to relate to her. I find that a very old-fashioned notion - but I'm not sure if other people feel the same as I do there.

If shes young and single then its usually not as relatable for men as her motivations frequently revolve around find love

but that's kinda what need to change. Women aren't only interested in finding love; they have other interests and missions in life, the same as men do, but those 'other' interests and missions (as you rightly point out) are not adequately being portrayed in mainstream film I think

pwurple

Potatoeman wrote: »

The whole gritty thing is new and only suits a few characters not everyone.

It isn't new at all though. Take any memorable literary character... the best of them suffer through some series of horrible misadventures or traumas to build the character. It's what makes them interesting. Take some examples of female characters in books that stand the test of time... Moll Flanders? Pregnant convict, thief. Lady MacBeth? Murderous nutcase. See? Non-boring!

Name any male character that is as shallow as charlie's angels, and I'll show you an equivalent flop.

Potatoeman

pwurple wrote: »

It isn't new at all though. Take any memorable literary character... the best of them suffer through some series of horrible misadventures or traumas to build the character. It's what makes them interesting. Take some examples of female characters in books that stand the test of time... Moll Flanders? Pregnant convict, thief. Lady MacBeth? Murderous nutcase. See? Non-boring!

Name any male character that is as shallow as charlie's angels, and I'll show you an equivalent flop.

Batman started the whole gritty thing in movies but it had a stage in comics too. Superman, Spiderman and Wonder Woman are not suitable gritty characters Batman sure. Superman for example is supposed to be an idealist and gritty does not sit well on him.

Sleepy

Amica wrote: »

everybody's going on about about how ludicrous a female Bond would be, but what about Salt (Angelina Jolie)? Was that not about a female badass spy?

I didn't particularly like the movie (haven't really liked an Angelina Jolie since Girl Interrupted) but you've missed my point rather spectacularly.

There's nothing wrong with having a woman playing a "badass" spy. She just can't play James Bond because his character is by definition an old-fashioned "man's man".

I think many have it on the money when they say that mainstream Hollywood is too lazy to create action movies/tv properties based on genuinely strong female leads. It's extraordinary though because when they do them properly, the characters quickly become fairly iconic (River Song from Firefly / Hit Girl from Kickass / Dana Scully from X-Files / Sarah Connor from Terminator 2 or more recently Arya Stark in Game of Thrones etc.)

smash

pwurple wrote: »

Those are pretty good examples of what's wrong with female action heroes. Compare batman to wonder woman. Batman has a bit of grit, background, depth. Wonderwoman is essentially a skimpy outfit.

There's always batgirl... but that flopped too.

pwurple wrote: »

Obvious lazy generalisation there, but I'll bite anyway. Plenty of girls do want to be superheros, or at least mine does. She wants to be either Batman with a batmobile, or her own creation DaisyGirl... who turns the badguy's arms and legs into daisies.

Of course it was a generalisation. It was a generalisation of the selfie obsesses, self entitled narcissistic generations that are currently becoming adults, yet never grew up.

Brave was actually a great movie. Strong female lead, not 'sexy' or even classically 'pretty' so to speak but girls didn't like it. They want to be a character from Frozen instead.

Arne_Saknussem

Potatoeman wrote: »

Batman started the whole gritty thing in movies but it had a stage in comics too. Superman, Spiderman and Wonder Woman are not suitable gritty characters Batman sure. Superman for example is supposed to be an idealist and gritty does not sit well on him.

There's a whole world of films & literature outside the silly superhero bubble. Gritty's been done for centuries.

Potatoeman

Amica wrote: »

I don't think a female character needs heavy involvement in her family's lives (any more so than a male character does) for me to relate to her. I find that a very old-fashioned notion - but I'm not sure if other people feel the same as I do there.

They look at character relatability but I honestly dont know how much it matters. I would think a good idea or hook would be better but something lasting.

Amica wrote: »

but that's kinda what need to change. Women aren't only interested in finding love; they have other interests and missions in life, the same as men do, but those 'other' interests and missions (as you rightly point out) are not adequately being portrayed in mainstream film I think

Look at the most popular show aimed at women recently, sex and the city. What drives the characters? Why is it so popular with women?

strobe

Sleepy wrote: »

I didn't particularly like the movie (haven't really liked an Angelina Jolie since Girl Interrupted) but you've missed my point rather spectacularly.

There's nothing wrong with having a woman playing a "badass" spy. She just can't play James Bond because his character is by definition an old-fashioned "man's man".

I think many have it on the money when they say that mainstream Hollywood is too lazy to create action movies/tv properties based on genuinely strong female leads. It's extraordinary though because when they do them properly, the characters quickly become fairly iconic (River Song from Firefly / Hit Girl from Kickass / Dana Scully from X-Files / Sarah Connor from Terminator 2 or more recently Arya Stark in Game of Thrones etc.)

You know why all those characters worked so well (well I've never seen kick-ass so exclude that) they were female, with female characteristics. Not just women playing male roles. Men and women in general terms have behavioural differences. You could no more drop a male actor into those roles without changing it a lot, basically creating an entirely different character but for some reason keeping the name, than you can drop a female actor into the male roles talked about and have them work without doing similar.

It's a stupid, lazy, irritating idea this gender reversal stuff. People always bring up Ripley out of Alien in this discussion. They didn't just have Weaver play the role originally written as male, they completely re-wrote it from the foundations up to make it work as a woman . That's why it worked.

People don't want to see women acting just like men, because it's too unrealistic. They want good female characters that ARE female characters.

Potatoeman

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

There's a whole world of films & literature outside the silly superhero bubble. Gritty's been done for centuries.

Follow the relies. I was responding to a poster saying Wonder Woman should be gritty. I disagree, I enjoy gritty but only where it fits and isnt shoehorned in.

Sleepy

smash wrote: »

Brave was actually a great movie. Strong female lead, not 'sexy' or even classically 'pretty' so to speak but girls didn't like it. They want to be a character from Frozen instead.

Some kids got it... my daughter loves Merida (though she loves Ana and Else too).

strobe wrote: »

You know why all those characters worked so well (well I've never seen kick-ass so exclude that) they were female, with female characteristics. Not just women playing male roles. Men and women in general terms have behavioural differences. You could no more drop a male actor into those roles without changing it a lot, basically creating an entirely different character but for some reason keeping the name, than you can drop a female actor into the male roles talked about and have them work without doing similar.

It's a stupid, lazy, irritating idea this role reversal stuff. People always bring up Ripley out of Alien in this discussion. They didn't just have Weaver play the role originally written as male, they completely re-wrote it from the foundations up to make it work as a woman . That's why it worked.

People don't want to see women acting just like men, because it's too unrealistic. They want good female characters that ARE female characters.

Totally agree! It's why the "Mrs Pacman" characters like Supergirl, Batgirl, Elektra, Cat Woman etc. never do well. The movies don't flop because the characters aren't girls, they flop because they're ****e characters.

I think it's a real shame that we never got to see Joss Whedon's Wonderwoman, If there's any man in hollywood who has a great track record of writing "strong women" characters it's Whedon. Warner Bros must be kicking themselves to have passed on it at the time!

Amica

Sleepy wrote: »

you've missed my point rather spectacularly. There's nothing wrong with having a woman playing a "badass" spy. She just can't play James Bond because his character is by definition an old-fashioned "man's man"

You should have made your point better. I just see James Bond and Bourne as spies. I wouldn't really see Bourne as "an old fashioned man's man" and I'm not sure the more modern Bond fits that description well either. (I'm thinking of the first Bond movie with Daniel Craig - that whole love & heartbreak story was a bit different to the older storylines). I'll admit though that I haven't seen any more recent Bond movies so I don't know if they've reverted to form or stuck with that tortured hero angle.

Look at the most popular show aimed at women recently, sex and the city. What drives the characters? Why is it so popular with women?

recent? Didn't that show end about a decade ago? And I wouldn't call sex and the city a love story!

People don't want to see women acting just like men, because it's too unrealistic. They want good female characters that ARE female characters.

Agreed. I have no need for Watson to suddenly morph into a female etc, but it would be nice to see more good stories about interesting female characters

seamus

I think the problem with the portrayal of women in traditionally male roles is not that these roles don't suit women, it's that they're often written poorly.

So they're written as excessively macho women, practically just making James Bond a woman without changing personality at all. An aloof and violent woman is not relatable to most people (and not attractive to most people), so it fails.

Likewise, if you go the other direction and make her too girly and stereotypical, she doesn't embody any fantasy in people. She's not a character that women grow up wanting to be or that men think would be great and so she's just not interesting.

James Bond is popular because he embodies a fantasy of people of the kind of person you could be; a super-intelligent, sauve, international jet-setter saving the world from evil.

There are plenty of examples of female action characters who've worked well, so it's perfectly possible for popular female action roles to exist. Sure you can "recast" existing characters, but you risk creating a character who's unrelatable because you'll try to make her similar enough to her alter-ego while rewriting the part for a woman.

limklad

Amica wrote: »

everybody's going on about about how ludicrous a female Bond would be, but what about Salt (Angelina Jolie)? Was that not about a female badass spy?


Yeah you've hit the nail on the head there. Little girls and grown women the world over aspire to be Kim Kardashian. That is the pinnacle of success for the entire gender. :rolleyes: Where's a face palm smiley when you need one?


I don't think a female character needs heavy involvement in her family's lives (any more so than a male character does) for me to relate to her. I find that a very old-fashioned notion - but I'm not sure if other people feel the same as I do there.


but that's kinda what need to change. Women aren't only interested in finding love; they have other interests and missions in life, the same as men do, but those 'other' interests and missions (as you rightly point out) are not adequately being portrayed in mainstream film I think

Angelina Jolie is no ordinary woman. She is outside the norm, a large outlier, when it comes to the female of our species. You are not comparing like with like.

Angelina Jolie is also very attractive and genuinely confident and heavily physically active and therefore more believable as a hero.
Angelina Jolie is not the type of person who as the question "Does my bum looks big in this?"
She is far more believable than having Kim Kardashian been a hero with her lipstick and make up posing in front of the camera, acting narcissistic.

seamus

limklad wrote: »

Angelina Jolie is no ordinary woman. She is outside the norm, a large outlier, when it comes to the female of our species. You are not comparing like with like.

She is also very attractive and genuinely confident.

-_-

Isn't that what we're talking about though? It's not like James Bond is a typical male, nor any of the men who have portrayed him.

The very reason why these characters are popular is because they embody a fantasy; for both sexes.

limklad

smash wrote: »

Wonder Woman: last episode aired in 1979
Charlie's Angels: last episode aired in 1981 - Film reboot in 200 was pretty awful and got shíte reviews.

Just two examples of action shows containing strong female leads that didn't really work beyond the era of when they were new. I just think that in general, girls/women don't want to be 'superheros'. They want to be feckin Kim Kardashian or something.

Charlie's Angels, you were not watching those shows because of their acting ability. It was their other assets that drew in the attention.

Amica

limklad wrote: »

Angelina Jolie is no ordinary woman. She is outside the norm, a large outlier, when it comes to the female of our species. You are not comparing like with like.

Angelina Jolie is also very attractive and genuinely confident and heavily physically active and therefore more believable as a hero.
Angelina Jolie is not the type of person who as the question "Does my bum looks big in this?"
She is far more believable than having Kim Kardashian been a hero with her lipstick and make up posing in front of the camera, acting narcissistic.

what? I didn't compare Angelina Jolie with Kim Kardashian! I compared her to James Bond (who is certainly not representative of an "ordinary man")

Arne_Saknussem

Potatoeman wrote: »

Follow the relies. I was responding to a poster saying Wonder Woman should be gritty. I disagree, I enjoy gritty but only where it fits and isnt shoehorned in.

i see, retracted.

syklops

Saw this yesterday

They are remaking MacGuyver and he will be a girl. A smart, spunky engineer who women can look up to.

There are numerous projects in various IT companies Ive worked in, trying to encourage more women into Technology and into Tech jobs. In one place I worked there was even a women only monthly meetup - something which would be frowned upon if it was men only.

I think Sleepy has hit the nail on the head, its not that there arent any strong female characters, its that the secondary ones that exist often suck.

There are actually plenty of strong female characters around. Alias was a hit spy drama in the 90s starring Jennifer Garner. The girl with the Dragon Tattoo stared in 3 books, 3 straight to TV movies and 1 hollywood blockbuster, Scarlett Johansen recently starred as Lucy in the movie of the same name, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Miss Marple, Hetty Wainthropp, Jessica Fletcher, Cagney and Lacey, Leela from Futurama, Kate from Lost.

Theres loads of strong women in interesting, often male dominated jobs, the thing Hollywood, and TV-land is missing is an original idea.

Amica wrote:

everybody's going on about about how ludicrous a female Bond would be, but what about Salt (Angelina Jolie)? Was that not about a female badass spy?

The only reason a female James Bond would be silly is because James Bond has a history, a culture spanning forty years. Over the years he has shared the screen with many strong female characters, many who saved his (as opposed to made him) bacon a few times, and a few who nearly killed him.

Potatoeman

pwurple wrote: »

Those are pretty good examples of what's wrong with female action heroes. Compare batman to wonder woman. Batman has a bit of grit, background, depth. Wonderwoman is essentially a skimpy outfit. Who the heck wants to watch an outfit every week? The characters need a good bit of suffering to hold anyone's interest for a prolonged time. Sometimes I think film/media industry has such an aversion to making a female character look vaguely unsexy for five minutes, that they make the character just plain boring, as she ends up completely one dimensional.

Here is where Wonder Woman comes from. A 1930's feminist polygamist that also invented the lied detector.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2628-All-The-World-Is-Waiting

pwurple

Potatoeman wrote: »

Follow the relies. I was responding to a poster saying Wonder Woman should be gritty. I disagree, I enjoy gritty but only where it fits and isnt shoehorned in.

Uh, i didn't say wonderwoman should be gritty. I said wonderwoman was rubbish because it was one dimensional.

Characters of any gender are more watchable when they are interesting for their story... when characters are in any film for just their looks, interest wanes fast. Engaging the brain is much more entertaining than just the eyeballs. I'd imagine that's all the 'feminists' on the radio were saying. They were expressing boredom with the zillions of vapid non-characters there as decoration, instead of more juicy interesting characters.

If anyone said it to me, I'd be telling them go off and write some. Bound to be money to be made in that gap in the market.

Pat Mustard

syklops wrote: »

Saw this yesterday

They are remaking MacGuyver and he will be a girl. A smart, spunky engineer who women can look up to.

McGalver, I suppose.

tritium

syklops wrote: »

Saw this yesterday

They are remaking MacGuyver and he will be a girl. A smart, spunky engineer who women can look up to.
.

Ah yeah of course they are. Much more important to do something to bring women into STEM subjects and address the gender imbalance in favour of men there than to address the overall gender imbalance in favour of women in the educational system across most college courses ( and indeed even in second level success rates)

Henry9

syklops wrote: »

Saw this yesterday

They are remaking MacGuyver and he will be a girl. A smart, spunky engineer who women can look up to.

Oh God. Sassy, don't forget sassy.
Why do role models need to have the same sexual organs? Do they think girls are all feeble minded? Did all the female fans of Star Trek become counsellors and doctors while the male fans became engineers? Are no women in science because of that show?

syklops wrote: »

There are numerous projects in various IT companies Ive worked in, trying to encourage more women into Technology and into Tech jobs. In one place I worked there was even a women only monthly meetup - something which would be frowned upon if it was men only.

I worked in a company like that. It always struck me as tokenism and patronising, because it has no wider relevance. It also seemed to attract the sharp elbowed strivers who were more keen to 'raise their profile', or be seen to jump in whole heartedly with whatever corporate bullsh1t was going on.

Anyway, let them remake what they want, they've no original ideas anyway. Everything is remakes now.

the_syco

eviltwin wrote: »

Do you mean changing existing characters as in the suggestion that James Bond be played by a woman or just female superheroes and that kind of thing? I don't believe a character that is known as male/female needs to be changed and won't work as people know and love that character as they are but see no problem with introducing new characters that go against the norm.

They're making a female Mcgyver.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/macgyver-returns-but-with-a-difference-handyman-hero-of-classic-1980s-tv-series-to-be-recast-as-a-woman-10067997.html

Henry9

tritium wrote: »

Ah yeah of course they are. Much more important to do something to bring women into STEM subjects and address the gender imbalance in favour of men there than to address the overall gender imbalance in favour of women in the educational system across most college courses ( and indeed even in second level success rates)

They'll just do what they did with Maths, dumb it down, make it more 'relevant', set essay questions on 'female role models', and watch the standards plummet.
Coincidence probably.

Anyway, no, reversal doesn't work.
Imagine Scooby Doo with the genders reversed.
Exactly.

DoYouEvenLift

Potatoeman wrote: »

Batman started the whole gritty thing in movies but it had a stage in comics too. Superman, Spiderman and Wonder Woman are not suitable gritty characters Batman sure. Superman for example is supposed to be an idealist and gritty does not sit well on him.

Spiderman could be done excellently with a similarly gritty and serious tone to TDK trilogy. It all stems from his uncle being shot, just like Bruce Wayne's parents. The thing is, I'm not sure many fans would be okay with it because for a spiderman to be made like this they'd really have to stray from the comics/source material. It'd also have to be done and planned out really well and since superhero movies are churned out within a year or two these days that's the most unlikely part.

Cookie_Monster

Don't forget too that it was tried with Picard and we ended up with Janeway

Gits_bone

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What's wrong with the "if men can do it, women can too" attitude? I'm against altering IPs in this way and would rather see new ones though.

Because just because a man can do it doesn't mean a woman can do it too.