Remember that sex we were planning to have, ever again?

Zoe ,'Our Mrs. Reynolds'


Natter 68: Bork Bork Bork  

Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.


§ ita § - Aug 05, 2011 9:30:04 am PDT #19480 of 30001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

"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.


Connie Neil - Aug 05, 2011 9:33:35 am PDT #19481 of 30001
brillig

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.


Connie Neil - Aug 05, 2011 9:35:23 am PDT #19482 of 30001
brillig

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."


§ ita § - Aug 05, 2011 9:39:27 am PDT #19483 of 30001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

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.


smonster - Aug 05, 2011 9:43:44 am PDT #19484 of 30001
We won’t stop until everyone is gay.

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.


Consuela - Aug 05, 2011 9:45:40 am PDT #19485 of 30001
We are Buffistas. This isn't our first apocalypse. -- Pix

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.


Steph L. - Aug 05, 2011 9:49:44 am PDT #19486 of 30001
this mess was yours / now your mess is mine

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.)


Consuela - Aug 05, 2011 9:52:10 am PDT #19487 of 30001
We are Buffistas. This isn't our first apocalypse. -- Pix

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."


Connie Neil - Aug 05, 2011 9:54:35 am PDT #19488 of 30001
brillig

Good lord, people, when I did I become a hater of women to this degree? Doesn't the fact that that test exists indicate that female characters get put into movies for insufficient reasons?

To whom should I submit my posts for proper sociological/political vetting in the future? Because heaven forbid I should post something that expresses insufficient appreciation for appearances of women in media.

And if you think I seriously hate seeing women in movies because they block my view of the men, I can only assume I've been seriously misinterpreted over the years.


Steph L. - Aug 05, 2011 9:57:06 am PDT #19489 of 30001
this mess was yours / now your mess is mine

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."

True, although I wouldn't have had a problem with the character being entirely absent, either, because she really felt tacked on to make sure there was a woman in it. That's very specific to that story, though, and what it reflects of Batman's very narrow vision of his mission (i.e., no room for the wimmins). So I guess I'm looking at it through the specific story.

In general, though, yeah -- better written women characters, who have a purpose other than being a love interest, are sorely lacking in movies. It's sad when Thor is the only recent movie I've seen that passes (and just barely) the Bechdel test.