There was an interesting, though brief and quickly smoothed over, debate I had on another message board comparing Endgame’s “feminism”/“sexism” vs The Last Jedi and Rise of Skywalker in the same topic.
Endgame kills off the only female founding Avenger before the climax in what can easily be argued as a “stuffed in the fridge” moment, and has the “Female Avengers” scene that’s kind of orphaned off by itself considering what it was supposed to be (the best spin you *could* put on it is a promise f things to come now that Feige’s free of his boss... but it still feels like dragging feet on that matter.)
I think I *could* argue that The Last Jedi does a worse job, and in doing so undermined the Sequel Trilogy, but that The Rise Of Skywalker maybe did a better job than Endgame.
Rey in both films gets abbreviated and somewhat shallow writing... but TLJ flat out kicks her out of the climactic confrontation right after Kylo tells her she’s nothing and has no place in the story (which I feel is an accidental mistake by Johnson in his script) and had her characterization just plain mauled to act as tools for Luke and Kylo’s story - she’s basically just an audience stand-in to ask Luke the questions needed for him to exposit on his man pain that’s the main thrust of the film, and any depth, self-respect, personality, or agency that she had in TFA is totally ignored in fair of an abusive relationship the film wants to portray as vaguely romantic with Kylo.
At least TROS remembered *she’s* the main character, and it tried to actually give her a character arc. And while the poisonously shallow and misguided writing of her interactions with Kylo still screwed her over (she pulls a Sleeping Beauty in the film’s final gamble to try and make the Neo-Nazi mind rapist seem redeemed and worthy of a kiss), it also still strive to make sure she got the central focus in the final showdown (in spite of clear pandering to the Ben Solo fans who never seriously grasped what Kylo was.)
It’s a weird contrast - the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy started off planning to have a female lead Jedi hero (even when first brainstormed by Lucas), while the MCU was launched with Feige kind of forbidden from making a female hero movie until his boss got taken away. The MCU still feels restrained by old school sexism and fear of new frontiers, but is trying to grow, has one major success with Captain Marvel and *should* have one with Black Widow and future heroines as well. The Sequel Trilogy, and the first spin-off film Rogue One, started off much stronger... but I’d argue that The Last Jedi kind of burned too many bridges and undercut Rey enough that they need either new female leads or do what Clone Wars and Rebels did and keep pushing older ones like Ashoka.
(Seriously, The Siege of Mandalore arc feels like it took the old kid appeal character of Ahsoka and managed to make her better than Rey, largely because they knew how to handle creating a complex relationship with a monster in Maul.)
Like action, adventure, rogues, and outlaws? Like anti-heroes, femme fatales, mysteries and thrillers?
I wrote a book with them. Outlaw’s Shadow: A Sherwood Noir. Robin Hood’s evil counterpart, Guy of Gisbourne, is the main character. Feel free to give it a look: https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asi...E2PKBNJFH76GQP
She didn't say she didn't want men to see the movie. What she said was that if doesn't make money, it'll reinforce the stereotype that men don't want to see women in action films. When it flopped she didn't blame men. She said she was proud of the movie and then made a joke about if you're going to have a flop, at least have your name on it four times.
I liked all the actors involved and enjoyed the movie for what it was, but it could probably used as an example of "women being written as men." That in and of itself isn't a problem when the man's role is written with nuance and depth or believable personality traits. But Geena's dialogue as Charlie Baltimore is mostly hack action hero lines that's supposed to be seen as "macho".
And therein lies part of the problem.
Badass action hero lines = macho instead of just badass hero.
And token 'badass' women have been appearing in movies for years, as if 'badass' is the only descriptor she gets. She's the token 'macho' girl.
So long as being able to fight/handle a gun/toss off sharp and witty quips while wiping the blood from their nose on the back of the hand is seen as 'for men only' or 'macho,' then this issue will persist.
Charlie was written as a tough, deadly assassin, but the key part of that movie wasn't just Charlie, but that she was written to contrast with the motherly Samantha.
More importantly, though, it's Samuel L. Jackson's favorite movie with himself in it
One doesn't justify the other. Male movies do the same thing and it sucks then, too. Its always better to just make a good movie with characters that act somewhat like real people.
Did you like the scene, then, I take it? Endgame was kind of filled with the same kind of stuff as that scene.
Every day is a gift, not a given right.
I quite literally groaned and facepalmed in the theater when it happened. It didn't help that they decided to kill off the only female Avenger earlier in the movie. I thought that split second was pretty lame, especially in the moment. Captain Marvel needs some serious stopping power, but rather than get Iron Man, Thor and Hulk, she gets Wasp, old Wasp and Mantis? I'm not knocking the characters themselves, but they're hardly who you want to have by your side when you go up against Thanos.
I didn't mind that BW was the one to make the sacrifice. I think it elevated the movie, in fact.
I did mind that they sent the two most ground-level Avengers to the center of celestial existence to face whatever they would find there, which no one had the slightest idea what that would be.
It would make more sense to send those two to Asgard, as that mission was sneaking and subterfuge, which they excel at. But the creators had predetermined that Thor would find his redemption talking to his mother, and they needed Mjolnir back so Cap could illogically lift it, and provide an emotionally satisfying few seconds of his going toe to toe with Thanos.
As for the Charge of the Female Avengers, I don't get too worked up about it. It's certainly not the most outlandish moment of the movie, but I'm not a woman and would not attempt to mansplain why women shouldn't be annoyed by it (our men, for that matter).
Last edited by RockyHorror; 08-04-2020 at 03:43 PM.
To be clear, my problem wasn't with her being a bad-ass, it's with how poorly her dialogue was written. It seemed like in order to make the contrast between her two personalities clear, the screenwriter went over the top with some of Charlie's lines and it went into unintentional self-parody. Some of that "suck my d*ck" and "life is pain" stuff I would have cringed at if Eastwood or Bronson had said them.
What funny is that it was written by Shane Black who's proven that he can write funny and relatable action heroes. But I think maybe with this one, he wasn't up to his A-game.
Not to mention several non-human women, women from non-American cultures etc. Mantis, Nebula, Gamora, the Dora Milajae etc should be going "WTF are you guys doing, stop playing around"
Yes, sending Black Widow and Hawkeye to an unknown alien planet to face who knows what was probably the worst part of the plan. Several other missions could have used a stealth operative and they would have been much more useful there.
I don't think any character "should" be written any particular way - it's case by case. But this thought just came to my head, specifically as it applies to action hero lines:
Men in action movies tend to spout hero lines that show a certain callousness to killing. That makes them "cool" somehow - to be flippant in the face of death, whether they're the ones in peril or if they've just killed someone. (or just about to, i.e. "Go ahead, make my day" or "hasta la vista, baby")
Perhaps the most memorable line by a female action hero is "Get away from her, you *bitch!*" Ripley is protecting someone - she has regard for life and is the ultimate momma bear.
I'm going to guess that "written like a man" reflects how some people see a man's role in the world vs, a woman's role and that if she's written to embody traditional male attitudes like the aforementioned callousness towards death, or being cocky and overconfident, then she's "written like a man."
Last edited by j9ac9k; 08-04-2020 at 09:34 PM.
I'm just talking about this specific film. My point is, I believe the writer didn't write "what would make sense for this character to say," he wrote "what would a tough guy in a movie say" and he came up with stereotypes and cliches. And those stereotypes were inspired by so-called tough guys in cheesy movies.
My point isn't that Charlie shouldn't have been mean or tough or bad-ass. It's that writer gave her bad dialogue and I believe he made her actually less well rounded than the male leads in his other movies.