Would The Dark Knight have survived in this new era of Feminism

[lowfyr]

Problem is, today any film can get into trouble because people seeing in their mind flaws. Guardians 2 got into trouble because for some people thought Mantis was not into fighting. I wonder what the same people would have said if they used the original characterisation^^

[Scott Taylor]

I do think people would have criticised it on the grounds of "fridging" Rachel, yes. Rather more to the point, I don't think she's a particularly interesting or well-written character - just a frankly sanctimonious foil, albeit well acted by Gyllenhaal. That's just an observation about the character as she appears to me in the film, rather than a political point.

Rightly so. The first movie made her somewhat important but in TDK Rachel was pretty far from an interesting character, her role pretty much 100 percent served the development Joker, Batman and Two-Face more than being her own character of any importance. Besides the fridging aspects, it was majorly disappointing to see her become a damsel in distress and then get exploded unceremoniously off-screen.

[Osiris-Rex]

Problem is, today any film can get into trouble because people seeing in their mind flaws. Guardians 2 got into trouble because for some people thought Mantis was not into fighting. I wonder what the same people would have said if they used the original characterisation^^

Not movies, but there are people making a fuss about Ruby Rose being cast as Batwoman because they don't think Ruby Rose is lesbian enough to play the role.
Not because she isn't a lesbian, she is. Because she doesn't fit into their tiny little box.

[jump]

Not movies, but there are people making a fuss about Ruby Rose being cast as Batwoman because they don't think Ruby Rose is lesbian enough to play the role.
Not because she isn't a lesbian, she is. Because she doesn't fit into their tiny little box.

I thought the fuss was about her reputation of being a poor actress.

[Osiris-Rex]

I thought the fuss was about her reputation of being a poor actress.

That's not why Ruby Rose quit Twitter though. It was because there were people that either didn't know she was a lesbian and were indignant they didn't cast a lesbian for the role or there were people
insisting a less well known lesbian should have gotten the role. And then there were people claiming she wasn't doing enough for lesbians. Which sort of shows how idiotic people are.
I doubt actors give a damn if some people think they are poor actors because obviously the people that pay them money think they are good enough. There are people that don't think
Gal Gadot or Melissa Benoist are good actors either and they are just ignored by the actors. If someone has a reputation as a poor actress, they wouldn't have been hired in the first place.

[jump]

That's not why Ruby Rose quit Twitter though. It was because there were people that either didn't know she was a lesbian and were indignant they didn't cast a lesbian for the role or there were people
insisting a less well known lesbian should have gotten the role. And then there were people claiming she wasn't doing enough for lesbians. Which sort of shows how idiotic people are.
I doubt actors give a damn if some people think they are poor actors because obviously the people that pay them money think they are good enough. There are people that don't think
Gal Gadot or Melissa Benoist are good actors either and they are just ignored by the actors. If someone has a reputation as a poor actress, they wouldn't have been hired in the first place.

Well it's all they talked about when they quit rather than the reason, it's almost as if they wanted to side step certain criticism by acknowledging the non-sense critics. There is a certain truth to they aren't lesbian enough since they claim to be genderfluid which is more devisive than you would think in the gay community. Lumping all minority sexual groups together is like saying Candians/Americans or Mexicans/Puerto Ricans are the same thing.

I disagree about only good actors get hired for roles, if someone brings an audience then they will get hired. It's been like that for decades.

[Speed Force League Unlimited]

People still consider it a classic, and I don't see complaints about her being in the same trap as Harvey Dent was at the same time probably captured by an overwhelming number of gangsters.

Rachel was pretty strong and courageous before she died, her character may have lacked depth, but she made the psycho guy in clown make up pleased for kicking him.

[Powerboy]

That's not why Ruby Rose quit Twitter though. It was because there were people that either didn't know she was a lesbian and were indignant they didn't cast a lesbian for the role or there were people
insisting a less well known lesbian should have gotten the role. And then there were people claiming she wasn't doing enough for lesbians. Which sort of shows how idiotic people are.
I doubt actors give a damn if some people think they are poor actors because obviously the people that pay them money think they are good enough. There are people that don't think
Gal Gadot or Melissa Benoist are good actors either and they are just ignored by the actors. If someone has a reputation as a poor actress, they wouldn't have been hired in the first place.

I suspect whatever issues some on the Internet or certain groups have with Ruby Rose, it will be relevant only if the powers that be feel they need to listen to those groups. The overwhelming majority of the potential audience won't care about this and will either like the show or not based on what airs.