Speculation we need more women main characters.

To clarify: I don't see how I was contradicting myself. I never said you can't have a good female action star. I said finding a well written female action character is rare. Writers, usually men, fall into the troupe of writing a female character as a "man with boobs." There is no unique voice to them. Ripley, I was using as a positive example, on how to do it well. But, she is rare.

As far as the Bond, no disagreement with you. But I would say an "Opposite twist" is getting to the point of a different character. A writer would be better off doing something else entirely imo.

But, I am beginning to suspect we are discussing two different things. I am talking character, you seem to be talking about roles.

For example, a woman or a man can be a lead pilot in an action movie. But whether the character is male or female is going to completely change the dynamic of how that character is perceived. Age, sometimes ethnicity(depending on the type of subject matter) can make drastic changes to the perimeters of a character.

Another example could very well be in the "Clone Wars" tv series, Ashoka is a jedi knight(just like Anakin). But she is not the same type of character. She is, in many ways, written as a young girl for young girls to relate too.

A badly written character is something that usually ignores those perceptions. Then the character usually becomes stock or disposable.

 

I hope they don't shoehorn in any male characters just for the sake of a male character.

 

Thanks for clarifying; I knew I must have missed something.

We're in agreement on what we want for Star Wars are well written characters.

In the end, though, women have as much right to play a badly written character as a man - but it's far, far better to have a well written character. And sometimes that character is clearly best as a certain gender, especially if a writer sets it up that way.

So maybe we want writers who can write good roles for either gender?

Boy, this reminds me of some of the LIT posts about sexuality-inclusiveness.

 

I was obviously joking before, but if it comes down to it (which it shouldn't), they should absolutely include a female character just for the sake of including a female character, it's a worthy effort.

Also, you can have a female James Bond, easily. Females can shoot Walthers, do Judo, spy with gadgets, drive fast cars, drink, smoke, gamble and have lots of sex. I'd want to **** her and some women would want to be her, just like some guys want to be James Bond and **** the Bond girls, while some women want to **** Sean Connery.

 

Superficially, you can have female character have that. But you can't get into the subtext of misogyny, and sexism that comes with James Bond. The reason why he acts that way pertains to his back story and his relationship with Vesper Lyn. You would have to completely rewrite the character of Bond as written by Ian Fleming. It wouldn't be loyal to the character any more to not incorporate those flaws.

But as Vailary and me were saying you could have a story about a female 00 agent. But she wouldn't be James Bond.

Its like saying you could remake Darth Vader as a female(not the role of the villian in general, the character). Yeah, you could do it. But it would be a completely different dynamic. I'm not quite sure if it would be as successful.

 

A female 00 agent, kicking ass and having lots of sex, is a play on misogyny and sexism, it's an inversion.

I'd never even heard of Vesper Lyn until the recent Casino Royale movie, and neither did a ton of people.

You can still incorporate the flaws, you can just invert them into a feminist. You can incorporate an inverted backstory.

Duh, James Bond is male, his name is James. Of course it wouldn't be James Bond, it'd be Jane Bond.

For a lot of people, James Bond is just what I mentioned above about the Walther, the gadgets, the cars, the sex, etc. It would be close enough to James Bond for me.

Many people, including myself, called Ahsoka "Anakin 2.0" early on.

Yes and no. These "opposite twists" are what Star Wars does, the PT in many ways is the mirror image of the OT. They're different, but the same.

"It's like poetry, it's sorta, they rhyme."



I know I'm repeating stuff you've already answered, so you don't have to repeat your answers if you don't want to.

 

You didn't read my previous post and cherry picked what I said. I elaborated already why it couldn't be done in my previous post. But you chose to ignore it.

 

Because everything your saying is terrible lazy writing. BTW, having lots of sex is not a play on misogyny or sexism. Thats simply having lots of sex.

Doing inverted backstories is cheesy lame writing. Your better off making an entirely different character.

Using George Lucas as an example, who is speaking on symmetry in regards to themes, is kinda of an awkward example. The man is a great storyteller when it comes to ideas/concepts. But he is a terrible writer which largely deals with nuts and bolts.

 

Female James Bond as in a female spy?

 

I'm not promoting gender stereotypes. I'm making an observation a female James Bond can't really deal with character flaws of misogny/sexism.

Making her have lots of sex as some sort of female sexual empowerment is not really addressing it(although you seem to interpret it as such).

 

I've seen a lot of people post this, and I agree that it's a good example of a female action hero, but I don't really see what defines the character as female other than her name.

I know she missed most of her daughter's life while she was in stasis and then forms an attachment to Newt, but I don't see why that's feminine. Men don't care about kids?

What else is feminine? She's not 250 pounds of muscle? Neither are a lot of dudes. She gets scared? So do a lot of dudes.

I see what you're saying about how characters are received as men and women, how that affects the audience, and I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying it doesn't have to. This is the point about separating feminine and masculine roles, they're mostly in our heads and most of the differences don't really exist.

I don't see why they couldn't have replaced Ellen Ripley with Allen Ripley.

Lumiya is a take on femVader and she was pretty well received.

Female spy in the James Bond style, yes.

It's basically been done already, even in the Bond films, with Halle Berry as an American agent and Barbara Bach as Agent XXX, the female Russian version of Bond.

Angelina Jolie as Salt is another similar example, though with obvious differences. (because it wasn't a Bond film) Salt was originally written as a male and Tom Cruise was the lead.

 

No they mean literally James Bond. Not just a female spy.

 

No, nobody means literally James Bond, because James Bond is obviously a man with a penis. We mean Jane Bond.

 

I looked back and noticed CT said female 00 agent. I wouldn't mind that, but I don't want to see the actual James Bond turn feminine. That's counterproductive for him.

 

Then your changing the perimeters of what we are discussing. Jane Bond, which is terrible wordplay btw, is not James Bond. I am talking the character of James Bond and how it is impossible to do him as a female. I am not arguing that woman can't be a female 00 agent.

Do people even read my posts?

 

Bond, Jane Bond?

 

Lumiya is a take on femVader and she was pretty well received.

Female spy in the James Bond style, yes.

It's basically been done already, even in the Bond films, with Halle Berry as an American agent and Barbara Bach as Agent XXX, the female Russian version of Bond.

Angelina Jolie as Salt is another similar example, though with obvious differences. (because it wasn't a Bond film) Salt was originally written as a male and Tom Cruise was the lead.[/quote]



The reason why Ripley is a good example, is how people treat her, and the dynamic she provides. Its also pretty significant subtext with Ripley's motherly realtionship with Newt. Yeah it could be a fatherly realationship, but its a different dynamic.

Or even in Alien when Ash is fighting with Ripley. Part of the the subtext of that scene deals with rape. You ever wonder why Ash rolls up the magazine?

I mean geesh Alien 3 explicity deals with the fact that Ripley is a woman on a male penal colony.

Lumiya is not Darth Vader. Even though she shares superficial characteristics with him. But being a cyborg and evil doesn't make one Darth Vader.

Its funny you bring up Salt which was largely criticized for trying to shoe horn Jolie into a character meant for Tom Cruise. The writers didn't even to bother to change anything, and the movie was pretty terrible. It was also more or less a bomb. It only was able to turn a profit in regards to its worldwide gross.

 

It is a terrible wordplay, but this discussion has just gone full retard.

You're argument is that it's impossible for James Bond to be female. Duh, he's male, his name is James, and he has a penis. Discussion closed.

I thought Salt was good. And yes, it was rewritten for Jolie by an entirely different writer. It made a small profit in the US and Canada alone, and a big profit worldwide. It's reception was mixed, getting a 62% on Rotten Tomatoes and 65 on Metacritic. Hardly a bomb. So your statements are just false.

I don't remember anyone commenting that Jolie was shoehorned in, and I haven't seen any such comments in the reviews I'm looking up right now. Maybe it was just you.

However, I saw several reviews praising Jolie's action chops.

 

To your first point about about James Bond: I agree that the discussion is at far as its going to go.

To the point about Salt:
It was a bomb. It pulled in little bit north of a 100 million domestic with a budget of over 100 million. It was only able to turn a profit in its worldwide gross. Its worldwide gross was over 100 million, thats hardly a big return for the type of movie that it was marketed to be(which also costs money). If it was small indie film you may have a point.

Jolie has been trying to do a sequel to it. But the first film wasn't all that successful it probably won't happen.

As far as the quality, you liked it, I hated it. I don't feel like going into why or not. Frankly, because I don't want to revisit that movie ever again. I will say that if you want to see a film that tries to do similar dynamic and largely succeeds its "Haywire."

 

Because your confusing characters with roles. They are two different things. I'm not saying a woman can't play a super spy, I'm saying she can't play James Bond.

The only time roles come into play is if its not realistic(if thats the tone) to portray a job that woman don't do typically, or can't do. For example, I want to make a movie about a infantry unit in Afghanistan. Well woman aren't infantrymen so its probably a bad idea to put them in that role.

But that is a RARE exception. Generally you can put a woman in any type of role, but person's sex is going to be a signifcant portion to their character(if its well written). Same thing can be said about age, or sometimes ethnicity.