Star Wars

have you considered that blockbuster movies only succeed (and therefore reach your suggested remit of influence) because they portray a generalised world that the majority of society would be pleased to live in

Pettytyrant101 wrote:It is odd- there are strong female characters in earlier writing- its really mainly our own time that females are so poorly represented as rounded, real characters.
I wonder why? You'd think with more equality in law, and the work of feminism,  there would be more postive and strong female roles, not less. Any guesses why this might be?

'

both ways... because some interpret feminism as "OMG. I CAN WEAR A BRA, AND ONLY A BRA, TO SCHOOL TODAY AND OMG YES I'LL DO THAT" as being strong and independent and..lol.
i point at miley citrus, Rimanna, Nicki Minaj, that bieber girl(his girfriend) and a ton of others who play on sex. showing women as objects (i thought we were past this but lol.. k.)

and men too.. men just hop onto this wave and are like "well, hell yeah, more boobs" and continue to write them as the opposite sex, not women.

Eldorion wrote:

Norc wrote:i would write more crabbit reviews, but my computer is getting overheated and i think it deserves a break and it is 03:22...!

Some other time, then.

yes some other time, this is something i actually am really pasionate about, women in movies and media and shitty stereotype-movie (now also thinking that why are every man-protagonist main character white and american? never aisans, black people, indian etc.etc.. always white american. yes, will smith as broken this down a bit, but still..??)

CC12 35 wrote:have you considered that blockbuster movies only succeed (and therefore reach your suggested remit of influence) because they portray a generalised world that the majority of society would be pleased to live in

Obviously blockbusters only succeed when they are able to appeal to generalized mass audiences. But that doesn't mean that one cannot make small changes. The sad truth is that a big-budget action movie with a sole female protagonist would probably not even be greenlit, but one can at least make baby steps by encouraging moviemakers to produce films with better-written and more numerous female characters.

yes, that's a good point CC, it's hard to grasp the public, but as Eldo says, they can at least write good female characters, and even more i always see this pattern of trios. two guys and one woman.

pirates of the carrebean
harry potter
hunger games
needlehole
etc.etc

I thought of Needlehole when I was writing my earlier post. But my excuse is that it was originally a homoerotic bromantic duo with no main female characters, so adding Agent Nora was a step towards gender parity.

yeah, its hardly a good example of badly written characters or stereotypes.. i mean.. it pro-gay, it has the super strong and very complex characters Figg and Amarië dunno bout nora.. a bit childish but fierce it was just a good example for a trio

the issue is much deeper than cinema you'd be stupid to think such minor changes in the development of films would alter why people are attracted to action films without a solo female protagonist and don't see it as an issue (which it isn't) women have incredible influence over other and better genres

because some interpret feminism as "OMG. I CAN WEAR A BRA, AND ONLY A BRA, TO SCHOOL TODAY AND OMG YES I'LL DO THAT" as being strong and independent and..lol.- Norc

Got to admit as a man that one is one of the most humorous aspects of feminism.
When men were putting women on films and shows in skimpy clothing it was exploitation- and for a while in the late 70's and particualry the early 80's (in UK anyway) that sort of thing was frowned upon and offscreens, no more Benny Hill, or Pans People on Top of the Pops- then women suddenly decided if they choose to take off their clothes and show their bodies for entertainment or financial gain that was feminism.
And all the men in the world looked at each other, thought a moment and said "yup   youre absolutely right- thats definetely feminsm- could you do that again please?'

i am going to bed now, but i am just gonna say one more thing. cinemas won't start the change in how people see women, cinema just mirrors socitety and how it is presented in media, and society presented in media is by actresses, musician trubadures (rihanna and all those people singing about sex, drugs,party adn whateverzz)

so change in society --> change in cinemas --> help people see other stuff.

where to start? idols of course. people young folk look up to.


nighty night-

well said

thank you CC
i worked hard on how to get the "goodnight" to sound cool

CC12 35 wrote:the issue is much deeper than cinema you'd be stupid to think such minor changes in the development of films would alter why people are attracted to action films without a solo female protagonist and don't see it as an issue (which it isn't) women have incredible influence over other and better genres

It's a good thing I didn't say movies were going to alter anyone's psychology then. I still think that it would be an improvement over what we have now. And if better-written female characters result mean that the role models produced by cinema better reflect society as a whole, then I'd say that's a good thing.

there's tons of good films released every month without the blatant sexism

I don't know who you're responding to because I think I was pretty clear a page or two back that I agreed there are non-sexist films, but that I was talking specifically about blockbusters.  Which are the films that are seen by the most people (especially children) and thus are the most likely to produce widely-recognized role models.

I think its all part of the derth of writing talent in Hollywood.
I dont think aspiring wirters any longer look to write for Hollywood- its crap for writers- there is little fame, there are more constraints than freedoms and any writer of quality will have his work hacked to death by ediotors and execs anyway.
I reckon TV is now where writers go, not cinema.
And if you look at female representation as real characters on TV, compared to Hollywood its miles better.

CC- how many of those films even find a wide distributer? How many get flagged up in newspaper or tv reviews so you even know they exist? Buts thats a whole other problem with cinema.

i thought we had already agreed why they were so popular

I also said that I think there's nonetheless potential for change in blockbusters, while you seemed content to write them off entirely.

every national and local paper i read has sections on the latest indie films

I didnt agree CC.
Film hasnt always dealt in purely stereotypes- not even Hollywood. Films with much better writing and deeper characters used to get made, they just dont now by Hollywood.

don't try to change the films people are making try to change society

My local cinema CC gets in big films- they are part of a chain of cinemas- they get whats given. Our local paper reviews only whats showingin the local cinema that week.
Cinema distribution is messy and very unfair to smaller and independent films.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I didnt agree CC.
Film hasnt always dealt in purely stereotypes- not even Hollywood. Films with much better writing and deeper characters used to get made, they just dont now by Hollywood.

classic films probably weren't all considered populist at the time

CC12 35 wrote:don't try to change the films people are making try to change society

I don't see how the one precludes the other.

I dont believe the tend CC is being driven by society.
TV shows like Game of Thrones- that Scandinavian detective show, Broadchurch in the UK ect are all quality writing, slow paced, character driven pieces- and they get the viewing numbers.
This problem is cinemas, not societies.