# Women Heroes in the Movies...



## Truth Seeker (Jan 28, 2005)

Well, with Hedi's article(Sci Fic News page) stating the obvious...about women heroes showing on the screen...is in jeopardy, or is it dead?

Problem? Yes...it is in our society.

What will take to change it, and how long?

Yes, my questions are vague, but there is enough to read between the lines.

Express constructively...your solutions for this dilemma.


----------



## Maerdwyn (Jan 28, 2005)

1) Make Better Movies.

Both Catwoman and Elektra stunk, and looked like it from the previews. The Lara Croft movies were only passable, and still did excellent business. It's not that teenage boys are scared off by women heroes and their sexuality - it's that if that's the ONLY thing that's bearable in a movie, the movie is dead on arrival.

2) Start off with mass marketable premises.

You can't sell Catwoman as a mass market heroine when most of the mass market thinks of Catwoman as a villain from Batman. You can't sell Elektra as a mass market heroine when she's a relatively obscure (speaking in terms of the general population, that is. If every single person who ever bought a comic in which Elektra appeared went and saw the movie, it would still flop.) character whose only introduction to most people was through another superhero movie that wan't very good and didn't do all that well, and which incidentally, killed off the character you're trying to promote. Wonder Woman is known by more of the public, is unambiguously a heroine, and remembered fondly from TV series, and is on TV now in Justice League. In other words, there is large enough fanbase to support a movie.  A decent movie, featuring her, would do well at the box office.


----------



## Mimic (Jan 28, 2005)

I have to agree with Maerdwyn, if your going to make a heroine movie make it about someone the majority of people know about. Go to anyone on the street and throw out the names Spiderman, Superman, Fantastic four or X-men and at least 90% would have some vague idea about what they are. 

Now do the same with Elektra and all you will get is a blank stare and  "Who's that?" as a reply. Whats the draw? Nobody will care enough to go.



> ''America is not ready for a female superhero,'' says Catwoman producer Denise Di Novi. ''Men [don't] want to see it — especially teenage boys — and it seems like women don't want to, either.'' Reasons Charlie's Angels screenwriter John August: ''Studios think all teenage boys are horny, and therefore want to see a beautiful girl kicking ass. But teenage boys are also kind of terrified of women, so the sexuality drives them away.''




That statement is all kinds of wrong, I don't think people really care if the hero is male or female. Its all about the plot, the script and the acting. Yes teenage boys are horny but are they going to spend 20+ dollars watch a bad movie for 2 hours to get some T&A or are they going to literally take 30 seconds and get it off the internet? The sooner Hollywood figures that out the better. They can't just stuff a women into a tight leather outfit and then wonder why nobody watched the movie.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jan 28, 2005)

Maerdwyn said:
			
		

> 1) Make Better Movies.
> 2) Start off with mass marketable premises.




Pretty much I agree. I wouldn't say Elektra was a bad movie, certainly not Catwoman bad, but the point about her being virtually unrecognized as such is a very good one. 

Wonder Woman is probably the way to go; she's the most recognizable female heroine we have.


----------



## nakia (Jan 28, 2005)

Another issue is source material (if we are restricting ourselves to comic based movies), which Maerdwyn alluded to.  Successful, female superhero stand alone comic books are rare.  Wonder Woman is the exception (and I am sure her solo book does not do nearly as well as JLA).

This, to me anyway, gives some creedence to the "not ready for a female superhero" argument.  Female super heroes do not do as well in the comics medium, either.

Yet, there are certainly successful movies that feature prominent women as heroes.  They just don't seem to be comic related -- like the Alien films, The Matrix (Trinity kicked a lot of butt), or Kill Bill.  Maybe it is the comic connection that makes things problematic.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 28, 2005)

The solution is simple - make a _good_ movie.  

Catwoman and Elektra were, by all accounts I've heard, horrible films.  They dont speak to whether the audience is ready for female superheroes.  They only speak to whether the audience is ready for really lousy movies.


----------



## Klaus (Jan 28, 2005)

I agree with the other posters. Making good movies is the way to go.

Comic books starring solo females don't sell as well because they tend not to be written as well, not because of the hero's gender.


----------



## nakia (Jan 28, 2005)

Let me be a bit of the devil's advocate and turn things around:

Maybe one's standard of "good" (writing, movies, etc) is related to perceptions of gender and expected gender roles.  Take the first two Alien films for example.  Ripley is a strong female character, no doubt, but in some ways retains some traditional female roles.  She's the scared woman alone in the dark in Alien, and the mother protecting her daughter in Aliens.

An interesting experiment would be to have an established writer with a built in fan base, someone known for good writing (Bendis, maybe, or Morrison or someone), write, say, Spider-Girl and see what happens.

Of course, there may be numerous examples already out there.  Neil Gaiman's work, like Sandman, features numerous female protagonists and was popular.  But Sandman certainly wasn't a traditional super hero book.  

Now, I am not saying Catwoman did not suck (I have not seen it and don't intend to because, well, it looks like it sucks).  I'm just playing devil's advocate and questioning assumptions.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 28, 2005)

Yeah, sticking an attractive actress into revealing outfits doesn't make a good movie.
A good script/director/acting makes a good movie.

Once Hollywood realizes this (they really do not seem to know, all things considered), they might start making good heroine movies.

Oh, and expensive SFX do not replace a good script either. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jan 29, 2005)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I agree with the other posters. Making good movies is the way to go.
> 
> Comic books starring solo females don't sell as well because they tend not to be written as well, not because of the hero's gender.




Uhm...Birds of Prey(comic)...has been doing pretty well


----------



## takyris (Jan 29, 2005)

I'm 'a have to jump on the "Make better movies" bandwagon.  As a moviegoing guy, I certainly don't *mind* a heroine who looks good in tights, but my "to go or not" decision is based not on tights-appearance but on whether it's a good story, with a good character, and good acting, and, y'know, stuff like that.  Does she get to do the stuff a male hero would get to do?  Did they get an actress capable of doing the physical role (in _Elektra_, I decided not to go after seeing the fights in _Daredevil_ -- Jennifer Garner is a good actress, but she can't sell me on a fight scene)?

I think the "guys are threatened by a woman who is strong and just want sex appeal" stuff is garbage.  At least, it is for me.  I'd rather watch Linda Hamilton single-hand-pump the shotgun and put a blast into the evil terminator in T2 than watch Cameron Diaz vamp her way through a _Charlie's Angels_ fight scene.  That's not to say I dislike Cameron Diaz, but I'd rather see her in something that isn't trying to sell me on her as an action hero.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 29, 2005)

Denise Di Novi obviously has a pretty short memory. "America's not ready for a female superhero"?

Yeah, because _Xena: Warrior Princess_ did so poorly. Oh, and _Charlie's Angels_, yeah, that was a big flop. Yes, obviously the problem is that America's not ready for strong, super-powered women. Because it's not like there's ever been a popular TV series called _Wonder Woman_, is there?

Sheesh. Why do people say things that they must know are going to make them look like idiots?

Just once I'd like to see some producer just come right out and say, "Okay, it sucked. You know, we really tried, but making a movie is hard and you wouldn't believe how you can overlook things that seem so basic when you're in the middle of juggling millions of dollars, stressed-out artists, angry investors and uncooperative weather. But we did our best, it didn't quite work out, we learned a lot and we'll try again. Catch you next time!"

I would go see her next movie just because she said that, frankly.


----------



## TemplarSaint (Jan 29, 2005)

I must agree with just about every other poster here: Bad movies are bad movies, and they cannot be taken as indicative of the popularity of a genre.  Unfortunately, the same type of careless attitude also haunted fantasy movies until Lord of the Rings came out.


----------



## takyris (Jan 29, 2005)

Barsoomcore: Or that small art-house picture, _Kill Bill_...


----------



## Villano (Jan 29, 2005)

> ''America is not ready for a female superhero,'' says Catwoman producer Denise Di Novi. ''Men [don't] want to see it — especially teenage boys — and it seems like women don't want to, either.''




Ah, yes.  The great Hollywood mantra, "It's not my fault!"  The movie didn't fail because it was one of the worst ever made.  It's the fault of the audience!  They just don't understand it!  And if you listen closely, you can hear the producers of Alexander crying homophobia.

I also enjoy the fact that she can say that men didn't want to watch her movie.  Women either.  That means that _no one_ wanted to watch her crappy film.  

I wonder if she actually believes what she says.  Do you think that she's convinced herself that the movie was really great and it's everyone else's fault it failed?  I hope she isn't still working in Hollywood.

Of course, the guy who directed House Of The Dead is going to be doing the Bloodrayne movie.  This means that someone in Hollywood actually watched that film and said, "Hey, this guy really understands video game movies!"




> Reasons Charlie's Angels screenwriter John August: ''Studios think all teenage boys are horny, and therefore want to see a beautiful girl kicking ass. But teenage boys are also kind of terrified of women, so the sexuality drives them away.''




Yes, because we all know that teenage boys don't want to watch sexy women.  In fact, teenage boys are much more likely to use the internet to reseach their homework than try to download naked pictures of women.

Also, I'm glad that they talked to the screenwriter of Charlie's Angels, because it's not like that film was based solely around the idea of beautiful women doing nothing but kicking ass.  People went to see it for the acting and Oscar caliber script.

Of course, people will go see bad movies with female leads.  Even the terrible Resident Evil: Apocalypse apparently did great at the box office (and that even had two ass kicking women in it).


----------



## Endur (Jan 29, 2005)

Both Catwoman and Electra should have been awesome movies.  The problem is the Directors and the Writers didn't know what they were doing.

Catwoman was treated like a cut-rate camp movie.  Guess what?  That doesn't cut it.

Catwoman was DOA... dead on arrival.  It was dead the second they decided to separate the character from Batman and change the character away from Selina Kyle.  First, Batman didn't have to appear in the movie (he never appeared in Birds of Prey), but he did have to be mentioned.  Batman should have had a cameo in the Catwoman movie.

Likewise, Daredevil should have had a cameo in the Electra movie.

Both movies were poorly directed and had terrible scripts.

Examples of Strong Female Movie Characters that Catwoman and Electra should have been like:  Female stars from Alien, Terminator, Tomb Raider, Matrix, Kill Bill, various martial arts films, etc. 




			
				Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> Well, with Hedi's article(Sci Fic News page) stating the obvious...about women heroes showing on the screen...is in jeopardy, or is it dead?
> 
> Problem? Yes...it is in our society.
> 
> ...


----------



## Victim (Jan 29, 2005)

nakia said:
			
		

> Let me be a bit of the devil's advocate and turn things around:
> 
> Maybe one's standard of "good" (writing, movies, etc) is related to perceptions of gender and expected gender roles.  Take the first two Alien films for example.  Ripley is a strong female character, no doubt, but in some ways retains some traditional female roles.  She's the scared woman alone in the dark in Alien, and the mother protecting her daughter in Aliens.
> 
> ...




Err, wasn't Alien originally written for a male lead, not Sigorny Weaver (name is probably butchered)?


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 29, 2005)

The answer is simple:

Give Joss Whedon, Tim Minear or JJ Abrams $75 million to write and direct X female lead film.

Or just do what everyone above has been saying and stop having hacks write, direct and produce these films.  There are many good lead roles on TV for females.  But genre-wise this just hasn't made its way to the silver screen in some time.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 29, 2005)

Victim said:
			
		

> Err, wasn't Alien originally written for a male lead, not Sigorny Weaver (name is probably butchered)?



That may be true, I can't recall at the moment.

The trick is that the part works for either gender and she knocked it out of the park.


----------



## Green Knight (Jan 29, 2005)

> Ah, yes. The great Hollywood mantra, "It's not my fault!" The movie didn't fail because it was one of the worst ever made. It's the fault of the audience! They just don't understand it! And if you listen closely, you can hear the producers of Alexander crying homophobia.
> 
> I also enjoy the fact that she can say that men didn't want to watch her movie. Women either. That means that no one wanted to watch her crappy film.
> 
> I wonder if she actually believes what she says. Do you think that she's convinced herself that the movie was really great and it's everyone else's fault it failed? I hope she isn't still working in Hollywood.




No kidding. Talk about sour grapes on her part. Catwoman's failure has NOTHING to do with sexism and EVERYTHING to do with the movie being one of the worst pieces of drek ever put to film. The damn thing reeked "ABOMINATION" from Day One. 

As for Elektra, I don't know whether it is good or bad, but the fact is that it's a spin-off from one of the worst Marvel movies means that it's already got a strike against it. Add to it that, yes, it is Elektra, a non-entity to most people, and it's already got a lot going against it. And if what I've heard is true about the film being bad, then that's enough to make it DOA. Believe me, people hear about these things. Hell, I was psyched about Punisher until it was about to come out and I actually started reading reviews of the thing. I've yet to see it. Wish I had done the same with that massive green turd, The Hulk. My only disappointment with the whole Elektra boondoggle is that Jennifer Garner, IMO, is a great actress. So it sucks to see her talents wasted on two movies that were less then stellar. Especially since the likelihood of seeing her in another comic book movie are nil.  

As for the whole thing about successful movies with heroines in the lead, I agree with pretty much everyone that the failure of some of these movies doesn't signal any kind of a trend. Because if you look at other films with female heroes in the lead, they've been successful for DECADES! Some movies fail, others succeed, but if you were to group them into two camps, with a handful of exceptions, the thing dividing the successes from the failures has nothing to do with sexism and everything to do with an utter lack of quality. That's why movies like Aliens succeed, while movies like Catwoman fail. There're exceptions, of course, but for the most part it has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with quality.


----------



## Chun-tzu (Jan 29, 2005)

nakia said:
			
		

> An interesting experiment would be to have an established writer with a built in fan base, someone known for good writing (Bendis, maybe, or Morrison or someone), write, say, Spider-Girl and see what happens.




Like when one of the most popular Hulk writers of all, Peter David, took over the Supergirl comic book?  Mixed results.  The comic did far better than any previous Supergirl series or many new titles these days, but it too eventually faded away and is about to be replaced.

I think the lack of lead super-heroines is the real key here.  I'm going to suggest something radical here.  Perhaps Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, and the X-Men aren't inherently great characters either.  When you think about it, there are a lot of silly aspects about these characters.

Now don't get me wrong, they are great characters.  Why?  Because they've been around for decades, spawning hundreds, perhaps thousands of stories.  Like any comic character, they've been revised time and time again.  This gives the potential for some really great stuff to come through and for a mythology to build around the character.  Creating any new super-hero that's going to be successful in the movies, TV, or comics is an amazingly difficult task.  For this same reason, we have no minority super-heroes with legendary status.

I'm not saying there couldn't be a successful super-heroine movie.  I'm saying that you can't compare Catwoman and Elektra to Superman and Batman.

Quality alone is not enough.  It's quality plus quantity.  Take the Blade movies.  We've got a really good start here.  Throw in a successful Blade comic series (which has so far proven unattainable) and make it last for 10 years.  Create a Blade cartoon show and make it last a few years.  Children have to grow up with the adventures of Blade, like we did with Superman and the others.  Then Blade will begin to achieve mythological status.  Same for any female super-hero.  Wonder Woman is the only contender here.


----------



## Klaus (Jan 29, 2005)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> Uhm...Birds of Prey(comic)...has been doing pretty well



 Agreed. That's because it is well-written (by Gail Simone, no less).

Unfortunately, BoP had that dreadfull TV series...

Some years ago, the video game industry ran a survey on the gamers populace and found out that:
1) Female gamers are more likely to play a game featuring a female protagonist.
2) Male gamers are just as likely to play a game with a male or female protagonist.

Here's what I'd like to see in the big screen:
- A Wonder Woman movie that adapts the George-Pérez-reboot from 1987 (including Wonder Woman chopping Deimos' head off with her tiara.
- A Batgirl movie with Barbara Gordon and Cassandra Cain playing the mentor/pupil angle.
- A Vixen movie played as an action movie akin to Shaft. C'mon, she's a superhero AND a supermodel!


----------



## Staffan (Jan 29, 2005)

Chun-tzu said:
			
		

> I think the lack of lead super-heroines is the real key here.  I'm going to suggest something radical here.  Perhaps Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, and the X-Men aren't inherently great characters either.



The X-men are a bit of a poor example, given that a significant part of the roster, including some of the more high-profile X-men, are women. Phoenix and Storm are the only ones from the movie (but that only has Wolverine and Cyclops as male leads as well), and in the books you also get Shadowcat, Psylocke, and a bunch of others.


----------



## Mystery Man (Jan 29, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> The solution is simple - make a _good_ movie.
> 
> Catwoman and Elektra were, by all accounts I've heard, horrible films. They dont speak to whether the audience is ready for female superheroes. They only speak to whether the audience is ready for really lousy movies.




Yeah, the whole "audience isn't ready" thing is a bunch of b.s. Blaming the audience for a stinker isn't going to get a good movie made.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Jan 29, 2005)

I think the problem is that Hollywood may tend to treat action movies with female leads as a kind of genre-film.  So when they create such a movie, they expect the genre itself to carry the film, rather than create a compelling story that also happens to be part of the genre.  A lot of bad sci-fi is produced this way as well.  The writers/producers expect sci-fi fans to make a movie a success just because it's sci-fi, whether or not its a bad movie.

The turning point will come when Hollywood remembers that an action movie with a female lead is still, first and foremost, an action movie.  The movie needs to be written well enough and directed well enough and acted well enough that it can succeed without depending on the sexuality of a female lead to pull it through.  At that point, the female action hero movie will make a dramatic leap in quality, which will lead to a commensurate leap in monetary success.  Indeed, at that point I would go so far as to suggest the female action hero movie might become the _preferred_ action movie, since it would have all the writing/directing/acting quality of a modern male-anchored film, with the added advantage of offering a sexy female lead.

Others have already mentioned successful movies with a female lead.  _Alien, Aliens, Kill Bill_, etc. etc.  The key to all of them, in my mind, is that they were written primarily to be good action films, with the fact that the lead is a woman only a part of that main goal.

Or at least, so it seems to me.


----------



## mmadsen (Jan 29, 2005)

nakia said:
			
		

> Maybe one's standard of "good" (writing, movies, etc) is related to perceptions of gender and expected gender roles.  Take the first two Alien films for example.  Ripley is a strong female character, no doubt, but in some ways retains some traditional female roles.  She's the scared woman alone in the dark in Alien, and the mother protecting her daughter in Aliens.



The role of Ripley was written for a male actor (in the first movie, _Alien_).  In fact, _Alien_ was originally going to take place on a WWII bomber with gremlins...


----------



## Berandor (Jan 31, 2005)

Well, I have read somewhere that girls are better at identifying with a hero of the opposite sex than boys are. It was in a discussion about male-centric fantasy, and the writer claimed that when writing about a male hero (Harry Potter, for example), girls are able to feel with/for him much better than boys would be for/with Hermione Potter.

I don't know if that was a strawman, of if there's a kernel of truth in there.


----------



## KnowTheToe (Jan 31, 2005)

I am going to go out on a limb and say, IMO, there are few if any good action movies with strong female leads.  Too often the woman lead has a very sharp tongue and always has to one up everybody else.  They are loud mouths and annoy me.  They are also directed and acted way too over the top for my tastes.  For the most part I think that writers write them the same as they would a man and again, IMO, I don't think that works.

Just having a femal lead in an action film will greatly reduce my interest in a film.  With solid writing and directing I think it could be done, but they cannot use the same rules of the ganre they use for men.


----------



## johnsemlak (Jan 31, 2005)

I think there tends to be a lack of female heroes/characters in in all genres of cinema, not just action movies.

How many movies can you think of that have no or nearly no female characters?   I thought of this as I was watching Das Boot recently.  There are certain genres that lend themselves better to female characters (comedy for example) but all in all I think the trend pretty much crosses genres.

Why this is can be debated at length.  I highly doubt it's unique to Hollywood.  

It is a trend going back many many years in cinema and theater.  There was a time when female actors weren't used at all.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 31, 2005)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> I think there tends to be a lack of female heroes/characters in in all genres of cinema, not just action movies.



I think you're rather overstating the case. Other than action (war/western/whathaveyou) movies, what other genre regularly has no female characters? And the action movie audience is overwhelming male, so that's hardly surprising.


			
				johnsemlak said:
			
		

> It is a trend going back many many years in cinema and theater.  There was a time when female actors weren't used at all.



Well, that doesn't really have anything to do with story-telling. There were no female actors in either traditional kabuki or Elizabethan theatre, but that's because society at that time and place didn't want a bunch of sexy chicks running around in the company of hot guys, everybody changing clothes in the same room and getting all, you know, tangled up.

But there were plenty of female CHARACTERS in the stories they were doing. So the point isn't really relevant.

That said, yeah, most movies are LED by a man. And I think Berandor's point probably holds true: women will go see a movie led by a man, but men are less likely to watch a (non-porn) movie led by a woman. By the same token, both sexes are more likely to pick up a magazine with a woman on the cover.

*shrug*


----------



## johnsemlak (Jan 31, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I think you're rather overstating the case. Other than action (war/western/whathaveyou) movies, what other genre regularly has no female characters? And the action movie audience is overwhelming male, so that's hardly surprising.
> 
> ...
> 
> That said, yeah, most movies are LED by a man.




I guess that's the point I was making.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jan 31, 2005)

If teenage boys didn't want to see Catwoman, who the hell do they think their audience is wth Hale Berry in black leather showing off her figure? The lesbian aliance of America?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jan 31, 2005)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Here's what I'd like to see in the big screen:
> - A Wonder Woman movie that adapts the George-Pérez-reboot from 1987 (including Wonder Woman chopping Deimos' head off with her tiara.
> - A Batgirl movie with Barbara Gordon and Cassandra Cain playing the mentor/pupil angle.
> - A Vixen movie played as an action movie akin to Shaft. C'mon, she's a superhero AND a supermodel!




If the person doing the Wonder Woman movie could treat it as good as say, Spiderman or the X-Men, as opposed to say, Daredevil or Elettra, then what would the person defending Catwoman have to say for herself? "Okay, I admit it, the movie sucked."


----------



## Vchan (Jan 31, 2005)

I think that people get carried away with the 'female' part of the 'female lead'

It is, with a few exceptions, assumed that in a female character strong=sexy.  So when they do a casting call for a 'strong' character, they start with their cup size...

I think, a female lead would do better in a situation where they concentrated less on the sexuality, and more on ability, intelligence, style and plot.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jan 31, 2005)

*They should cast Becca Swanson*

They should cast Becca Swanson in a movie.  "Standing at 5'9" tall and weighing in around 240 lbs., she sports 27" quads, 17.5" arms, and 17.5" calves."  

"WHAT ARE YOUR BEST LIFTS?

843 lb squat, 501 lb bench and 650 deadlift, my best total is 1912 lbs."

See her at: http://www.ftvideo.com/genex/profiles04/beccas.htm


----------



## S'mon (Feb 1, 2005)

takyris said:
			
		

> I think the "guys are threatened by a woman who is strong and just want sex appeal" stuff is garbage.  At least, it is for me.  I'd rather watch Linda Hamilton single-hand-pump the shotgun and put a blast into the evil terminator in T2 than watch Cameron Diaz vamp her way through a _Charlie's Angels_ fight scene.  That's not to say I dislike Cameron Diaz, but I'd rather see her in something that isn't trying to sell me on her as an action hero.




I agree 100% with this.  A lot of it is credibility - James Cameron knows how to make a movie with credible butt-kicking female leads; Ripley in Aliens or Sarah Connor in T2.  Most current directors don't.  Xena was cool because even though the show was usually extremely campy, Lucy Lawless does look like she can credibly kick butt - and there are some brilliantly visceral & non-campy Xena episodes.   That's why for me a show like Witchblade works whereas the likes of Alias & Dark Angel definitely don't.  Witchblade's lead looks credible in the role of a warrior, the other shows' leads don't.  If they maybe cast some 5'10" Xena types rather than skinny Ally McBeal type waifs in these superheroine roles at least they wouldn't start with such a huge credibility deficit.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Feb 1, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> That's why for me a show like Witchblade works whereas the likes of Alias & Dark Angel definitely don't.  Witchblade's lead looks credible in the role of a warrior, the other shows' leads don't.  If they maybe cast some 5'10" Xena types rather than skinny Ally McBeal type waifs in these superheroine roles at least they wouldn't start with such a huge credibility deficit.



Funny, I never had a problem with Dark Angel.  I suppose it's because the premise was founded on super-science.  I wasn't being asked to believe that a slip of a girl could beat up the weekly villains, I was being asked to believe that a genetically engineered metahuman with superior muscle density, reflexes, bone density, nerve pathways, etc.--who happens to look like a slip of a girl--could beat up the weekly villains.  And I bought it.  Completely different setup from Charlie's Angels.


----------



## Staffan (Feb 1, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> If the person doing the Wonder Woman movie could treat it as good as say, Spiderman or the X-Men, as opposed to say, Daredevil or Elettra, then what would the person defending Catwoman have to say for herself? "Okay, I admit it, the movie sucked."



Rumor has it that Joss Whedon's going to be heaviliy involved in the Wonder Woman movie. When it comes to writing strong female characters, Whedon's pretty good.


----------



## ddvmor (Feb 1, 2005)

As long as he's left to do his own thing.  Although I have to say that I'm not sure I can picture Wonder Woman doing... er... Buffy-Speak.

I can't help thinking that he's better suited to long-term series with their character development.  Serenity should be ok as he's had half a season to mold the characters...  but can he do it in a 2 hour movie?


----------



## Hand of Evil (Feb 1, 2005)

Good script very important but directors are not what they use to be, producers are now more involved than ever before but POP still rules, Catwoman was seen as an engine for Hallie Berry, Elektra for Jennifier Garner, why because they were HOT and MARKABLE and who made them that way?  Yes, maybe it was us with our googles: Jennifier nude but it could be they were thrown at us like Linsey Lohan.  Then there is *Million Dollar Baby*, female boxer movie by Clint starring Hillary Swank, gee I have not heard of Hillery for a very long time, think it was the *New Karate Kid* and look, Oscar nods and is that not a female hero? 

Hollywood has issues but it is that anything can be sold in that town and as long as there are fools and they have money...

Beware the buzz, it is just noise, no action needed.


----------



## Thanee (Feb 1, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Funny, I never had a problem with Dark Angel. I suppose it's because the premise was founded on super-science. I wasn't being asked to believe that a slip of a girl could beat up the weekly villains, I was being asked to believe that a genetically engineered metahuman with superior muscle density, reflexes, bone density, nerve pathways, etc.--who happens to look like a slip of a girl--could beat up the weekly villains. And I bought it. Completely different setup from Charlie's Angels.




Yep. I also found Jessica Alba to be perfectly fine in that role, much better than Halle Berry in Catwoman. 

And the first season was pretty cool, too. Too bad they could not continue on that level.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Berandor (Feb 1, 2005)

Believability *is* a problem. When there's a female action lead, and she runs like a nine-year-old schoolgirl with her arms waggling about, and she throws punches like someone who would break their hand hitting anything with it - it just loses momentum.


----------



## Thanee (Feb 1, 2005)

Yeah, it certainly helps, if they know a bit about kung fu! 

I liked the driver from Strange Days (name eludes me right now) on that behalf.
A very powerful woman in many ways and highly fit (uhh pun) for that role.

And a cool movie, too. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Chun-tzu (Feb 1, 2005)

Berandor said:
			
		

> Believability *is* a problem. When there's a female action lead, and she runs like a nine-year-old schoolgirl with her arms waggling about, and she throws punches like someone who would break their hand hitting anything with it - it just loses momentum.




Bridgette Wilson, who played Sonya Blade in Mortal Kombat, is a prime example of this.  Possibly the worst action heroine performance I've ever seen.  She obviously can't fight, and if the movie guys bothered to train her in martial arts, they did a terrible job.  Why she was chosen for the role in a martial arts movie is beyond me.  And some of the fight scenes with Liu Kang and Jonny Cage are really quite good.  Sandra Hess, who took over the role in Mortal Kombat Annihilation, was much better than Bridgette.


----------



## Berandor (Feb 1, 2005)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Yeah, it certainly helps, if they know a bit about kung fu!
> 
> I liked the driver from Strange Days (name eludes me right now) on that behalf.
> A very powerful woman in many ways and highly fit (uhh pun) for that role.
> ...



 That's Angela Bassett, who would've been my first choice for Storm in X-Men.

She rocks in that movie and is a really strong female sidekick to the wimpy Ralph Fiennes. But the film is also directed by Kathryn Bigelow (in 1995) who has made yes, two movies and 1 series episode in the follwing 10 years - one movie being French and the other being a submarine film.

But we're getting from strong female characters/leads to female directors, which is quite a different topic (why do Uwe Boll, Paul WS Anderson et al continue to make movies, but someone like Bigelow is almost blacklisted?).


----------



## barsoomcore (Feb 1, 2005)

Angela Basset. MeOW!

She would have been an AWESOME Catwoman.


----------



## Rackhir (Feb 1, 2005)

Berandor said:
			
		

> That's Angela Bassett, who would've been my first choice for Storm in X-Men.
> 
> She rocks in that movie and is a really strong female sidekick to the wimpy Ralph Fiennes. But the film is also directed by Kathryn Bigelow (in 1995) who has made yes, two movies and 1 series episode in the follwing 10 years - one movie being French and the other being a submarine film.
> 
> But we're getting from strong female characters/leads to female directors, which is quite a different topic (why do Uwe Boll, Paul WS Anderson et al continue to make movies, but someone like Bigelow is almost blacklisted?).




Most of her experience was as a producer not a director. Also, none of Bigelow's films have been big box office successes and at least one or two of them have been expensive failures. Her divorce from one of Hollywood's most powerful/influential directors (James Cameron) is unlikely to have helped much.

I agree in any case that Angela Bassett would have been a MUCH better Storm. She was terrific in Strange Days. Though ironically she gutted one of the main plot threads in "How Stella Got her Groove Back", since the female lead was supposed to be plain and not very attractive. Something you can not say about Ms. Bassett.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Feb 1, 2005)

Angela Basset - my favorite. She makes a very fine Tina Turner too. Better than Tina herself, IRTS.


----------



## Villano (Feb 1, 2005)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> Then there is *Million Dollar Baby*, female boxer movie by Clint starring Hillary Swank, gee I have not heard of Hillery for a very long time, think it was the *New Karate Kid* and look, Oscar nods and is that not a female hero?




Do you mean not hearing of Hillary Swank as an action hero or in general?   She was in Boys Don't Cry and won an Oscar for it.  Of course, you may not have recognized her since she was dressed like a guy most of the time.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Feb 1, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> Do you mean not hearing of Hillary Swank as an action hero or in general?   She was in Boys Don't Cry and won an Oscar for it.  Of course, you may not have recognized her since she was dressed like a guy most of the time.



Mostly as an action hero, I knew she has won an oscar before but you only hear of her every once in a few where next to some that are deemed flavor of the week that you hear about every day.    

She (and a few others) can carry a movie as a lead, Jennifer and Hallie, I don't think can.


----------



## Qlippoth (Feb 2, 2005)

Berandor said:
			
		

> That's Angela Bassett, who would've been my first choice for Storm in X-Men.



Absolutely.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 2, 2005)

Qlippoth said:
			
		

> Absolutely.



 Seconded. She has "African Weather Goddess" written all over her.

"Do you know what happens to a toad that is struck by lightning, mo-fo?"

"Huh?"

FZZZZAP!

"Same thing that happens to everything else... mo-fo!"


----------



## Merlion (Feb 3, 2005)

First, I agree with the whole "make better movies you blithering morons" sentiment. Although I probably will see Elektra...but I'm sure Catwoman was crap...of course I dont care as much for DC-based comic stuff anyway as a rule, and I'm not overly fond of Halle Barrie.


Next, if we're talking comic book movies...there is certainly a lack of lead roles. Most super-heroines are members of groups or teams, not the leaders of them or independent heroes. Also, comic books, super heroes, and movies based on them tend to suffer in credibility with the general public somewhat anyway.

I think as far as strong female roles overall... a lot of it is that movie people due tend to see a female lead as a means to atract a certain target demographic (males, especially young males) and so they play up the sex aspect and ignore the rest. But as has been said, thats not going to make a movie fly, if the movie sucks, not when guys can see atractive women on the internet more or less for free.


Really, I think it boils down to two things.

They need to stop trying to use sex appeal as a selling tool. In an action or sci fi or whatever other kind of movie, that isnt what most people are there for. If they want porn, they'll go online or otherwise aqquire porn...if the want an action movie, they want an action move and they want it to be good, and a scantily clad female isnt a good action movie.

Second, action/fantasy/horror/sci fi/comic book movies in generall need to be taken seriously by the people making them. It needs to be seen as serious storytelling rather than hackwork.


----------



## Thotas (Feb 3, 2005)

It's all about script quality.  Character name recognition?  Nobody had heard of Luke Skywalker or Indiana Jones before SW and RoLA, didn't seem to be a problem.  Audience not ready for a femme who can kick a man's butt in a fight?  Then why is Emma Peel remembered fondly after doing just that almost 40 years ago?  If we aren't ready for it now, we couldn't have been ready for it then.  It would seem that Catwoman was just a really bad movie.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 3, 2005)

Let's think of female comic book heroines that could be turned into movies:

- Wonder Woman: has to be epic in scope, she's an icon and the very first female superhero.
- Birds of Prey: Oracle, Black Canary and Huntress. I'd like to see this one in a James Bond-ish route, with lots of action and sneaking about and butt-kicking in exotic locations.
- Vixen: Supermodel inherits african artifact that gives her the powers of animals. I'm thinking slightly tongue-in-cheek, like a superpowered Cleopatra Jones.
- Zatanna: Stage magician that casts spells by speaking backwards. I can see this one as a romantic comedy, maybe with Marisa Tomei as Z.
- Batgirl: trained from birth to kill, Cassandra Cain must learn to live. This one could be a nice TV series, centered on Cassandra's attempt at a normal life.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Feb 3, 2005)

I'd just like to say that "women" is not an adjective, and "female" is not a noun.

We have female heroes who are women, thank you very much.


----------



## apoptosis (Feb 4, 2005)

Chun-tzu said:
			
		

> Bridgette Wilson, who played Sonya Blade in Mortal Kombat, is a prime example of this.  Possibly the worst action heroine performance I've ever seen.  She obviously can't fight, and if the movie guys bothered to train her in martial arts, they did a terrible job.  Why she was chosen for the role in a martial arts movie is beyond me.  And some of the fight scenes with Liu Kang and Jonny Cage are really quite good.  Sandra Hess, who took over the role in Mortal Kombat Annihilation, was much better than Bridgette.





I could be wrong but i think Bridgette Wilson played Red Sonja not Sonya Blade...Bridgette Wilson physically was good for Red Sonja..but she really was not a great actress and the movie was not so good.


----------



## Villano (Feb 4, 2005)

apoptosis said:
			
		

> I could be wrong but i think Bridgette Wilson played Red Sonja not Sonya Blade...Bridgette Wilson physically was good for Red Sonja..but she really was not a great actress and the movie was not so good.




Bridgette Wilson was Sonya Blade.  Brigitte Nielsen played Red Sonja.


----------



## apoptosis (Feb 4, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> Bridgette Wilson was Sonya Blade.  Brigitte Nielsen played Red Sonja.




I thought Bridgette Bardo played Sonya Blade    

Sorry..though i did say i might be wrong....

My understanding on Female was that it can be either an adj or a noun..looked up at Dictionary.com and it agreed with this (but not sure how good dictionary.com is).  I do know in scientific manuscripts and publications Female is an appropriate term for the Female of a species and is used as a noun quite often (saying the female instead of saying the female fruite fly..) (of course scientists are all insane so take that for what it is worth)


----------



## apoptosis (Feb 4, 2005)

On to the actual topic and not my odd confusions of all the sonja's and bridgettes of the world.......

I think they tend to have the all or nothing heroine as the lead actor too often in movies...She is either almost perfect (Laura Croft) or relatively inept.  I am sure that there are movies where this is not the case but it does seem to be the rule.  In TV this tends to be avoided (atleast in the good shows) as the length of the series allows the heroine to have more character depth.

I am sure this occurs with male heroes often as well, but the good action male heroes (Indiana Jones, Spiderman etc) tend to have better well rounded characterization...which could go back to they just happen to make bad action movies with women.....


----------



## S'mon (Feb 7, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Funny, I never had a problem with Dark Angel.  I suppose it's because the premise was founded on super-science.  I wasn't being asked to believe that a slip of a girl could beat up the weekly villains, I was being asked to believe that a genetically engineered metahuman with superior muscle density, reflexes, bone density, nerve pathways, etc.--who happens to look like a slip of a girl--could beat up the weekly villains.  And I bought it.  Completely different setup from Charlie's Angels.




I think my problem with Dark Angel was more in terms of 'tude than physical size (although I don't think genetic engineering is as good a 'handwave' as a straight magical explanation a la Buffy).  The lead in DA has a weird, blank, unformed sort of look, like a baby or an anime character without the expressive face.  For me Sarah Michelle Gellar could carry the Buffy role despite the small size because she got the attitude right, she seemed like a warrior.  Max(?) in DA didn't, IMO.  YMMV of course.


----------

