Matt, I don't think that you think women can't do anything men can do, and I don't believe I said anything to imply that. I simply am questioning why female characters can't have female voices. And since I do find the characters you listed very much female characters, I'm trying to understand what characteristics would make you think that a particular female character could be played by males with minor tweaking, and what exactly makes that a good thing.
As the anecdote with my granddaughter was meant to show, the attitude that a female character who is feminine is somehow not as positive as a female character who is genderless or has more of an "essentially male voice" is pretty widespread, even among my own family, so I'm not making this a personal attack. I'm just trying to understand the thinking, and you're the first person who has ever articulated the preference for female characters without female voices. I would prefer my grandchildren to grow up believing that "feminine" characteristics are just as valid and positive as characteristics that conventional wisdom says are gender neutral or masculine.
I don't take it as a personal attack, rather an indication I need to tighten up my explanations for clarity.
When I see this Supergirl clip, these are immediately what I thought:
It's not that I want females voiceless, just portrayed in the same fashion as the males. In the new Terminator movie trIler, my favorite moment is Sarah telling Reese "come with me if you want to live", then shooting a terminator.
M
What does "same fashion as males" mean? Because portraying a female who is interchangeable with a male is basically the same as making them voiceless. Good representations of female protagonists show women with agency and ability but still gives their story and perspective as much validity as any male counterpart, without shaming or double-standard type judgments. Supergirl should not be Superman in a skirt. Reskinning an essentially male character as a woman is the same as neutering a male character.
You have a clip from Aliens there, and that's actually a great example of the opposite of what you are talking about. Ripley was originally written as a man and wasn't really changed at all for Alien. I love that movie, more than Aliens, but she was a paper thin character. In Aliens, she's a much richer, more deeply realized character and a lot of that comes from her being written as a woman. Her maternal guilt underlies most of her actions, and her ability to defy the expectations of those around her and the audience makes it one of the all time best action-scifi performances ever. I mean she got an Oscar nomination for it. You put a man in that exact same role and it just would not have the same impact.
As long as Supergirl is portrayed in a way where she's the one making the decisions in her life and she's capable of solving different crisis through her own ability there is nothing wrong with her also being feminine, or occasionally flighty or girly. Those things aren't anti-feminist. Saying those characteristics are less valid than toughness and masculinity is. Showing women without agency, as passive participants or victims is. Showing the experiences of women as less equal to that of a man is.
I put this in the same perspective as I do casting Michael Clarke Duncan & Lawrence Fishburne in roles for characters have been traditionally Caucasian; lateral moves. If preferring female characters be lateral moves neuters their voice, then I'll just file this is the same 'misogyny' drawer as the accusations I'm slut-shaming Black Widow because I used "promiscuous" as a trait to describe her character just as I do for James Bond.
This trailer/clip came off more the Kuzui version of Buffy then the original version Whedon created. I'm glad this portrayal made everyone else feel gushy inside.
M...
Nobody used the word misogyny. I can't presume to know how you feel about the role of women in life but it seems like you respect them as equals. But not knowing the difference between calling a male character promiscuous and calling a female character promiscuous is ridiculous. It's like saying you don't know the difference between the sentence "He's a bitch" and "She's a bitch". Also, while there might be grounds in the comics, I don't really know, and that maybe what you were referring to at the time (I'm not aware of the context) if you were referring to the MCU version, I'd like to point out that she's never been seen to have a sexual relationship with anyone so to assume that her leveraging her sexuality means she sleeps with a lot of people is a form of slut-shaming.
The problem with the whole "lateral move" statement isn't that lateral moves are bad, if a gender or race switch leads to a better performance that's great. It's that the existing mold of the "white male hero" seems to be the yard stick you are measuring as greatest amount of agency and ability any character can have. This assumes that characters that don't fit that mold are somehow less valid as role models or positive characterization. Lateral move characters often don't have there own voice, they have the voice of whatever the original role was. It's not as genuine. It's a narrow range of experience that palette-swapping doesn't change or add anything to except maybe making other kinds of stories with a wider range of influences more palatable. Non white or female characters don't have to be portrayed as being the same as white male characters for them to be portrayed as equals, they just need to be portrayed as being owed the same amount of respect.
What I like Peggy & Widow is that is minimal tweaking to present them as males. ScarJo mentioned in her initial conversation with Whedon about Widow for Avengers the notion of gender was never involved. He didn't see Widow as a woman among men, but one of the group.
If you made the same slight tweaks to Kara, it wouldn't be easy to swap out the character with a male.
I know you can have a heroine driven series that is fun & optimistic, with a comic book-y feel that still presents the heroine with confidence & competence.
If my daughter was at an age to be watching these shows, I'd rather she watch Agent Carter & AoS.
M
I've been looking at this quote, and maybe I'm just reading this wrong. Why would a female character that only needs minimal tweaking to be presented as a man be a good thing? Is there something about presenting a female character exhibiting "female" qualities that makes her less than a female character exhibiting "male" qualities, or even "androgynous" qualities? I apologize if I'm misinterpreting you, but speaking as a woman, this seems a very strange statement to me.
M
I agree. It's an odd comment and does nothing to help with my confusion over what "feminism" is.
At least comment on my explanation:
"I prefer female characters be presented the same way as a male character is more often presented. I always circle back to Buffy Summers. With a few tweaks, that could've been a male role. I like when heroines are presented in a voice that was essentially a male role, then swapped out to make it a role for a female.
For example, Tom Cruise was initially offered the role of Salt. When he turned it down (because it was too close to his Ethan Hunt role), they made Salt a female & cast Angelina Jolie.
I think they show how equal the genders should be."
M
Grannygeekness has already commented much better than I could.
For my part, I found the comment mildly offensive. It could be taken as women needing to be de facto men to be taken seriously. It also adds to my confusion on what feminism is. Is the point of feminism to celebrate/elevate the feminine or make the feminine masculine. The latter would mean that the feminine isn't good enough. Something that I don't believe.
I would also add that this recent expressionism of feminism (uber-hot women with bad ass fighting skills) comes off more as male fetish than feminism.
I've seen it. Let me first say that, while I'd LIKE to post spoilers, I won't. Just because it's out doesn't mean everyone can watch it or even wants to. And, for all I know, even more news concerning the show will come out between now and then and I don't want to ruin the thread by people curious about the news stumbling upon the spoilers.
HERES WHAT I WILL SAY: Tonewise it's not Arrow. It's not Flash. It's not Gotham. It's not Constantine. Supergirl ABSOLUTELY is its own thing. The "threat" seemed haphazardly tossed together and I'm concerned with the potential for a "freak of the week" scenario. Kara herself is utterly fantastic. This is MY Kara. This is the eternally optimistic girl with an unextinguishable inner light that you can't help but admire and adore. You BELIEVE in her pure intentions to do good. And, when it comes right down to it, that's all I wanted from the pilot wether I saw it now or when it aired.
That said, this is DEFINITELY a pilot episode. You can totally tell. And I don't mean special effects wise. This is a completely new world and, right now, I don't care about any of the supporting cast, except, surprisingly, Jimmy Olsen. But, then again, it's a pilot episode for a daring new TV series. The goal for episode one is "make them care about Supergirl". In that, they succeed. I'll worry about and critique the supporting cast once we pass the point where they should have made us invested. The pilot isn't that episode.
I was really impressed by the pilot. I agree with CageNarleigh that it's very "piloty" but not necessarily in a bad way. Maybe we should create a spoilers thread so we can discuss it in more detail but I 100% agree with what CageNarleigh said about this being MY Kara (it's both of ours), the optimistic Kara. I love her.
My biggest hope is that this doesn't devolve into the typical CBS procedural. Please don't have Kara solving crimes :)
This has me so pumped that I'm thinking about doing some Supergirl collecting again, it's been a long time since I did that.
I'll throw out some hyperbole. If the show continues what the pilot set up... this will probably be my favorite superhero show outside of the Netflix Defenders series (which are just on another level). And even compared to those, this could wind up being more FUN.
I will say it wasn't that good IMO. Both Arrow, Flash, pilots where light years ahead of Supergirl. The actress who plays Kara was OK but the story it's self was basically the definition of cheese.
The twist at the end was extremely Lame? I don't know if that was a call back to an actual comic storyline? But I was underwhelmed by it.
And the villain was bad and I don't buy there villains story at all. They are saying these guy's have been around for as long as Kara got out of the Phantom Zone. And they expect us to believe that at some point Superman wouldn't have dealt with them?
By this pilot between choosing to watch this or Gotham I would definitely choose Gotham. I will give the show a few episodes but nothing in this pilot gave me any hope for this show.
So the Batman show without a Batman is still better than the Supes show with no Superman? Hmm... I rather enjoyed it.
I believe your review has made me seem positively encouraging by comparison... thanks!
I don't think Gotham is amazing or anything but I prefer there camp to Supergirl's. It is just a pilot so I will watch a few more episodes before I decide weather or not I want to keep watching it.
So is this where we lost @Matt and @grannygeekness ? Haven't seem them around these parts since...
I haven't seen the leaked pilot so I can't really comment on that, and I tend to drop out of conversations if it feels like I'm repeating things over and over again. I'm still reading the thread though.
So is this where we lost @Matt and @grannygeekness ? Haven't seem them around these parts since...
I haven't seen the leaked pilot so I can't really comment on that, and I tend to drop out of conversations if it feels like I'm repeating things over and over again. I'm still reading the thread though.
An example I could learn from.
I had to go with "Like" but I wish there was a button for "Wise".
I've seen it. Let me first say that, while I'd LIKE to post spoilers, I won't. Just because it's out doesn't mean everyone can watch it or even wants to. And, for all I know, even more news concerning the show will come out between now and then and I don't want to ruin the thread by people curious about the news stumbling upon the spoilers.
HERES WHAT I WILL SAY: Tonewise it's not Arrow. It's not Flash. It's not Gotham. It's not Constantine. Supergirl ABSOLUTELY is its own thing. The "threat" seemed haphazardly tossed together and I'm concerned with the potential for a "freak of the week" scenario. Kara herself is utterly fantastic. This is MY Kara. This is the eternally optimistic girl with an unextinguishable inner light that you can't help but admire and adore. You BELIEVE in her pure intentions to do good. And, when it comes right down to it, that's all I wanted from the pilot wether I saw it now or when it aired.
That said, this is DEFINITELY a pilot episode. You can totally tell. And I don't mean special effects wise. This is a completely new world and, right now, I don't care about any of the supporting cast, except, surprisingly, Jimmy Olsen. But, then again, it's a pilot episode for a daring new TV series. The goal for episode one is "make them care about Supergirl". In that, they succeed. I'll worry about and critique the supporting cast once we pass the point where they should have made us invested. The pilot isn't that episode.
So what'd y'all think?! I shared my thoughts awhile back when I couldn't resist the temptation to checkout the leak. Anxious to hear your thoughts!
It seems to have just as much of a possibility of having a freak of the week as The Flash did.
I enjoyed it. It started off with at least one cliche I wasn't crazy about, but they nipped that in the bud. It is already set to record on my DVR for every episode. We'll see if it remains high on my viewing order.
Comments
The problem with the whole "lateral move" statement isn't that lateral moves are bad, if a gender or race switch leads to a better performance that's great. It's that the existing mold of the "white male hero" seems to be the yard stick you are measuring as greatest amount of agency and ability any character can have. This assumes that characters that don't fit that mold are somehow less valid as role models or positive characterization. Lateral move characters often don't have there own voice, they have the voice of whatever the original role was. It's not as genuine. It's a narrow range of experience that palette-swapping doesn't change or add anything to except maybe making other kinds of stories with a wider range of influences more palatable. Non white or female characters don't have to be portrayed as being the same as white male characters for them to be portrayed as equals, they just need to be portrayed as being owed the same amount of respect.
"I prefer female characters be presented the same way as a male character is more often presented. I always circle back to Buffy Summers. With a few tweaks, that could've been a male role. I like when heroines are presented in a voice that was essentially a male role, then swapped out to make it a role for a female.
For example, Tom Cruise was initially offered the role of Salt. When he turned it down (because it was too close to his Ethan Hunt role), they made Salt a female & cast Angelina Jolie.
I think they show how equal the genders should be."
M
Grannygeekness has already commented much better than I could.
For my part, I found the comment mildly offensive. It could be taken as women needing to be de facto men to be taken seriously. It also adds to my confusion on what feminism is. Is the point of feminism to celebrate/elevate the feminine or make the feminine masculine. The latter would mean that the feminine isn't good enough. Something that I don't believe.
I would also add that this recent expressionism of feminism (uber-hot women with bad ass fighting skills) comes off more as male fetish than feminism.
http://vertigology.com/2015/05/21/full-length-supergirl-cbs-tv-series-trailer/
HERES WHAT I WILL SAY: Tonewise it's not Arrow. It's not Flash. It's not Gotham. It's not Constantine. Supergirl ABSOLUTELY is its own thing. The "threat" seemed haphazardly tossed together and I'm concerned with the potential for a "freak of the week" scenario. Kara herself is utterly fantastic. This is MY Kara. This is the eternally optimistic girl with an unextinguishable inner light that you can't help but admire and adore. You BELIEVE in her pure intentions to do good. And, when it comes right down to it, that's all I wanted from the pilot wether I saw it now or when it aired.
That said, this is DEFINITELY a pilot episode. You can totally tell. And I don't mean special effects wise. This is a completely new world and, right now, I don't care about any of the supporting cast, except, surprisingly, Jimmy Olsen. But, then again, it's a pilot episode for a daring new TV series. The goal for episode one is "make them care about Supergirl". In that, they succeed. I'll worry about and critique the supporting cast once we pass the point where they should have made us invested. The pilot isn't that episode.
My biggest hope is that this doesn't devolve into the typical CBS procedural. Please don't have Kara solving crimes :)
This has me so pumped that I'm thinking about doing some Supergirl collecting again, it's been a long time since I did that.
I'll throw out some hyperbole. If the show continues what the pilot set up... this will probably be my favorite superhero show outside of the Netflix Defenders series (which are just on another level). And even compared to those, this could wind up being more FUN.
I will say it wasn't that good IMO. Both Arrow, Flash, pilots where light years ahead of Supergirl. The actress who plays Kara was OK but the story it's self was basically the definition of cheese.
The twist at the end was extremely Lame? I don't know if that was a call back to an actual comic storyline? But I was underwhelmed by it.
And the villain was bad and I don't buy there villains story at all. They are saying these guy's have been around for as long as Kara got out of the Phantom Zone. And they expect us to believe that at some point Superman wouldn't have dealt with them?
By this pilot between choosing to watch this or Gotham I would definitely choose Gotham. I will give the show a few episodes but nothing in this pilot gave me any hope for this show.
I believe your review has made me seem positively encouraging by comparison... thanks!
I had to go with "Like" but I wish there was a button for "Wise".
The Red Tornado!? Man, we are living in a comic book heaven when even the Tornado can show up on a TV superhero show!
ign.com/articles/2015/08/10/supergirl-producers-reveal-more-dc-characters-and-address-pre-debut-criticisms
http://io9.com/heres-your-first-official-look-of-supergirls-red-tornad-1731938973?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+io9/full+(io9)
I'm going to continue to think positive thoughts and assume that it will look better in motion or with post effects.
https://twitter.com/IddoG?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
I enjoyed it. It started off with at least one cliche I wasn't crazy about, but they nipped that in the bud. It is already set to record on my DVR for every episode. We'll see if it remains high on my viewing order.