But Olivia Wilde is there as Obligatory Sex/Love Object/Female Distraction, so I'm leery.

Maybe she'll talk to another named female character about something other than men.

Thank you, Kathy.

"What is that female doing there? Get her out of the way and let the guys snark at each other!"

Wow, that's harsh. I don't even like Olivia Wilde and I think she had a perfectly reasonable place in the movie. Regardless of her gender.

I always admired Schwarzenegger's resistance to having anything sexual happen between his character and the woman in the first "Predator" movie. As I recall, it was something like, "There's something actively hunting them and trying to kill them, this isn't actually the time for sex!"

And I was sorry that "Doom" didn't get better play, because I was very pleased that the girl turned out to be the hero's sister, ie, instant believable interaction/backstory without trying to shoehorn some stupid relationship into it.

Wow, that's harsh. I don't even like Olivia Wilde and I think she had a perfectly reasonable place in the movie. Regardless of her gender.

I also didn't say it was about her and I haven't seen the movie yet, it was a general statement of my wanting to see guys interacting without what feels like "Oh, we ought to put a chick in this, or women won't watch it."

There are women in stories and life, though. It's hardly weird for it not to be a sausagefest. My point was that even as I was prejudiced to dislike her, she had an integral part in the story and I couldn't be mad at her. You seem to dislike her because she's got tits. She doesn't take away that much screen time from the penises--never fear.

it was a general statement of my wanting to see guys interacting without what feels like "Oh, we ought to put a chick in this, or women won't watch it."

You know what I'd like to see, instead of banning women from films because they're such a distraction?

Maybe she'll talk to another named female character about something other than men.

Ah, Gud beat me to it. How about they write women better? That would be my wish.

it was a general statement of my wanting to see guys interacting without what feels like "Oh, we ought to put a chick in this, or women won't watch it."

Because it's perfectly acceptable for the world not to have women in it?

I can appreciate the homoerotic snark factor without reacting like that. You sound like the guys quoted in the letters columns of 1920s/1930s sci-fi magazines: Oh Noes, no women, they'll taint our manly stories with romance!

As if that's the only function a woman can have in a story.

My reaction to that concept is unprintable and does not meet the civility standards of this board.

it was a general statement of my wanting to see guys interacting without what feels like "Oh, we ought to put a chick in this, or women won't watch it."

Because it's perfectly acceptable for the world not to have women in it?

Honestly, my reaction to Batman Begins was that Rachel was an utterly useless character, and not because of any HoYay factor. t edit And not because any "romance" (such as it was) between her and Bruce "messed up" the "manliness" of the movie. I just felt that, as a character, she brought nothing to the movie, and I think it would have been better without her.

Or, as smonster said, write a better damn character, one that actually brings something to the movie.

(I have no opinion on the James Bond/Indiana Jones cowboy movie, as I haven't seen it.)

Honestly, my reaction to Batman Begins was that Rachel was an utterly useless character, and not because of any HoYay factor. As a character, she brought nothing to the movie, and I think it would have been better without her.

But your reaction to that isn't "Don't put any women in the movie because they will distract from the HoYay," it's "Write a better character because women aren't useless in real life and shouldn't be in the movies, either."