8 ms·

It's not a coincidence that all the main characters featured in this video are women. The main thing the filmmakers are trying to show is that these are girl-bo

It's not a coincidence that all the main characters featured in this video are women. The main thing the filmmakers are trying to show is that these are girl-bosses who can do anything men can do (and more) and it's so important to show that with utter, relentless completeness, that they've created characters that are magical, who don't need to overcome anything, characters who matter mostly as individuals, who have no duties or responsibilities to anyone else (most certainly not to any men). They're just total kick-ass take-no-prisoners empowered women. That's why these characters are good at everything from the start. It's why they never struggle. The overriding point that's trying to be conveyed in every scene is that these women kick ass. That's why the modern Mulan can't be shown as weak and later overcoming her physical weaknesses in other ways. No, she cannot be weak -- full stop. If she encounters a much larger man, then she has to kick his ass. Addendum that shouldn't be required, but of course it is: I want to make it totally clear here that of course women leads can be interesting and dynamic and multi-dimensional. If you think I'm saying otherwise, then please don't even bother engaging, because you will have totally missed my point, which is that this particular approach to featuring women is ham-fisted and risible and probably counterproductive, in the end.

30649814 5y ago
>this particular approach to featuring women is ham-fisted and risible and probably counterproductive, in the end. Counterproductive in what way? I agree with you (and the linked video) that the approach is boring. But I also think it's effective.
wolverine876 5y ago
Men are portrayed this way all the time. Why would portraying women this way get so much attention and concern?
- smegsicle 5y ago
  showcasing female heroes as displaying exaggerated masculine abilities (in a sexualized female body) is belittling to actual feminine virtues
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Who cares what you think - or what I think? Who are you or anyone to define what these women do or want - and then weakly try to appeal to authority by assigning your opinions the words "actual feminine virtues"? Many men used to define those 'virtues' as not working, voting, having an opinion, and as being obedient, sexy, and sexually available to them (but not to other men!) - how convenient! > sexualized female body So? Does it intimidate you? Should they hide or show their bodies based on what you prefer, or on what you think is right? Who the f- are you (or I) to have an opinion on what they should do. Should I have an opinion on what you do? Meanwhile, women fight wars, run countries and corporations. They don't post much on Hacker News - look at this discussion of men saying what women should do, just like the old days. I wonder why we don't see more women here?
    - smegsicle 5y ago
      re-framing traditional feminine virtues (those things that most women are good at and enjoy, and which make families stronger and society flourish) as worth less than traditional masculine virtues is offensive to a lot of people, and is itself an appeal to an extremist ideology
      - wolverine876 5y ago
        > re-framing traditional feminine virtues (those things that most women are good at and enjoy, and which make families stronger and society flourish) as worth less than traditional masculine virtues is offensive to a lot of people, and is itself an appeal to an extremist ideology Which people? And so what if they are offended? These women should change what they do because you don't like it? Again, who are you (or I) or these putative offended people to tell these women what to do? > traditional feminine virtues Which don't exist, except in the minds of the people who want to control what other people do. > worth less than traditional masculine virtues Who compared anything between whatever you think masculine and feminine are? > an appeal to an extremist ideology So women working, getting educations, living independently of men, living their lives they way they please - that is extremist?
    - deleted 5y ago
zionic 5y ago
Deserves top comment
dragontamer 5y ago
I don't think gender has anything to do with it though. > it's so important to show that with utter, relentless completeness, that they've created characters that are magical, who don't need to overcome anything, characters who matter mostly as individuals, who have no duties or responsibilities to anyone else (most certainly not to any men). They're just total kick-ass take-no-prisoners empowered women. But what you've just described is Christopher Nolan's Batman (who loses to Bane physically early in the movie, and beats him by... physically overpowering Bane a bit later). The modern "superhero" genre is completely devoid of modern responsibilities. This wasn't true before... in the 70s, you had Clark who had to be a responsible person (show up to his job, write articles, etc. etc.). Despite being a magical alien from a futuristic society, Clark Kent had a number of "human" scenes, interacting with his boss, showing off responsible uses of his powers (ex: the Robbery scene, he manages to protect Lois Lane and the Robber, by pretending to be weak. Catching the bullet and pretending to go unconscious from fright). Today, Christopher Nolan's Batman (who is considered well written), leaves his company to go off on a Ninja-adventure. Leaves all the decision-making to a rival group of executives, and then magically takes back over the company despite his multi-year absence after siphoning funds to a secretive and poorly managed research-and-development corner of the company. And somehow the people who ran the company during his absence are the antagonists who need to be disposed of by the end of the 1st movie. ---------------- Don't get me wrong, Nolan's Batman is really interesting and fun to watch. But he's fun to watch BECAUSE he's an amoral asshole with crap moral lessons. Iron-man is another movie character who has this effect as well. Assholes who magically get their way are often interesting to watch. I wouldn't want any children following in the "lessons" of Nolan's Batman or 2008+ era Iron Man. They're awful moral characters. Ray (Star Wars, episodes 7-9) is positively a saint in comparison.
- dionidium 5y ago
  I upvoted both you and Buldak because I'm certain there's something to what you're saying. Few things are monocausal or completely explained by one factor. And surely these modern filmmaking tropes feedback on themselves and reinforce prevailing styles. Mine isn't any kind of grand unifying theory. I just think it's a factor.
clove 5y ago
What's the point of the third paragraph? To protect yourself from criticism?
- dionidium 5y ago
  From a certain kind of boring, predictable, repetitive criticism that's unresponsive to any of the actual points I made in my comment, yes. It either worked or I was too pessimistic, because the responses so far have been substantive and interesting!
  - clove 5y ago
    And I was downvoted for asking the question.
Buldak 5y ago
You're right that it's not a coincidence, but that's more a reflection of the video's author than its subject matter. I agree that the depictions of female characters in question are shallow and uninteresting, but I wonder what you're watching if you think recent blockbuster movies with male leads are much better.
- RobertMiller 5y ago
  Classic action movies of the 80s often had very flat good-at-everything male heroes. What weaknesses does John McClain ever show in Die Hard? Vulnerability to walking barefoot on broken glass I guess, not much. There are obviously exceptions, but generally action movies don't have very interesting characters.
  - dionidium 5y ago
    He's presented as a sad-sack alcoholic at the start of the movie!
    - RobertMiller 5y ago
      I guess I missed the alcoholism, I don't recall that. I remember he starts the movie with a bad relationship with his wife, but that's so he can win her back in the end with his counter-terrorism prowess (lol), not with any real character development that I remember.
  - darkerside 5y ago
    I feel like this is a poor example. McClain is frustrated and outmatched throughout the entire movie, and slowly is able to outmaneuver his foes through wit and determination.
spywaregorilla 5y ago
I think captain marvel is an interesting one on this note. It is a problem in recent films that writers want to overpower women to make things fair, and they do a disservice to the women by doing so. Captain marvel seems to address this directly and in a more mature way. Her character does start weak. She is shown losing repeated to her officer in physical fights and feeling inferior. Later she becomes the most powerful person the MCU has ever seen and the officer turns out to be evil. The climax of captain marvel's character arc in her movie is him trying to bait her into fighting him on fair, unpowered terms and she basically says fuck you and blasts him with a laser. It's not explicitly a gender thing, but making a firm statement that she isn't intrinsically better than the guy without her powers but that she won't be defined by those metrics. It felt like a much better way to handle this message. Being explicit that other people's (traditional male) competencies don't get to define your self worth. It's a flip on the "Let's Fight Like Gentlemen" movie trope and frankly I thought it was a solid message which helped avoid this narrative pitfall even though captain marvel herself is by far the most overpowered female example of late.
- sandworm101 5y ago
  A character who is put down, becomes angry, then becomes powerful and carries that anger forward. Yawn. That is the background of about half of comic characters. Compare Captain America. He was week and abused, became powerful, but actively decides not to carry baggage. It is a fish-out-of-water character that has to constantly reconcile ideology with army-inspired pragmatism and loyalty. And he has a foil (Iron Man). That's a balanced character that I can like. Captain Marvel is a hyperbolic one-sided character. Those Superman characters are doomed to be boring. Batman-like characters with complex stories are unpredictable and therefore have the potential to be interesting. Gender has nothing to do with Captain Marvel's fundamental problems.
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    > A character who is put down, becomes angry, then becomes powerful and carries that anger forward. But... that's the opposite of what happens. It is addressing this exact concept and doing something different. He's literally asking to fight like a gentleman. The dialogue in this scene is literally "can you keep your emotions in check long enough to take me on, or will it get the better of you?" And she rejects his cliche premise entirely as a false dichotomy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KK1Kv0IzUg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KK1Kv0IzUg male centric story telling often uses combat ability as a metaphor for personal growth. Usually with literal dialogue or reflections on moral lessons used to emphasize this relationship with the tide of battle turning when the lesson is made clear. I thought it was great to show that, while captain marvel's growth arc is not acquisition of strength but in deriving her self worth from herself rather than from her officer. I agree it will be hard to make more captain marvel movies because there's very little that can challenge her, unless they're willing to make a movie without a significant violent conflict. Not easy. Captain america is a great character concept too. I liked the falcon's series dissection of it. He's explicitly not a supremacist, while acknowledging the ease with which his circumstances could allow that- and do create that within other superheroes.
dudul 5y ago
You can also note a parallel with female villains. Yeah they're bad, but you know, it's not their fault. They had such a tough life. And really are they that bad? And don't hear me wrong. I do love fleshed out bad guys/gals. I do want deep bad characters, but when the backstory can always be summarized with "she went through tough time because of bad men, so now yeah she's kind of bad" it doesn't really count.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  > You can also note a parallel with female villains. Yeah they're bad, but you know, it's not their fault. They had such a tough life. And really are they that bad? Popular Hollywood female villains, maybe. My favorite female villains are Granny Goodness and Amanda Waller from DC Comics. Granny Goodness runs an orphanage for Apokolips. On the surface, she's a sweet old lady who recruits superheroines into Darkseid's machinations. But when the going gets tough, she pulls out her super-powers to punish any orphan who goes against her will. There's no "terrible backstory" or "not her fault" going on here. Granny Goodness is 100% loyal to the "evil new gods" of Apokolips and is incredibly competent at her role in raising new villains for the evil gods. -------- Amanda Waller is gonna plant a bomb in your head and force you to do what she wants. Why? Cause that's what she does. She's the official government's response to counteract the rise of superheroes / metahumans (Superman / Flash / etc. etc.), and feverishly works to blackmail any prisoner into building her super team.
  - Jiro 5y ago
    >Popular Hollywood female villains, maybe. Well, this is about "modern movies".
- RobertMiller 5y ago
  > Yeah they're bad, but you know, it's not their fault. They had such a tough life. And really are they that bad? A little bit of that can make for a good villain I think. Villains who were truly victims earlier in life, or have a lot of seemingly rational rhetoric to back up their position. But usually there's a point where the audience is told that yes, they really are bad, despite their background or arguments. Ma-Ma in Dredd or Solidus in MGS2 are examples that come to mind. Ma-Ma is a heavily scarred ex-prostitute and drug addict, but shamelessly has people tortured to death and thinks little of condemning thousands of innocents to death to protect herself. Solidus talks about taking the country back from the censorious AIs that control discourse and rig elections, but he's also a former warlord who trained child soldiers and has no remorse about it.
ReactiveJelly 5y ago
Have you seen the feminist reading of Mad Max: Fury Road? You might find it interesting. YouTube is not loading for me, but it's called "The avenging feminine": https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/9jzuci/bringing_back_whats_stolen_fury_road_and_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/9jzuci/bringing... My favorite part is something the essayist points out about the mothers [1] in Fury Road: They help in every fight. They shoot, they reload guns, they operate bolt cutters, they deny guns to enemies, they assist with _any_ light work that the buff action hero and heroine are too busy to do. And if there's nothing to do, they take cover without being asked. The mothers don't start weak and become strong, the movie isn't about that. In fact I don't think anyone in the movie gains strength. Nux has a heel-face turn, but that's all I remember for character change. Just because they're _side_ characters doesn't mean they _aren't_ characters. There's no scene (that I recall) where you have to ask, "What are the non-combatants doing right now? Standing and watching?" And even though they're still physically weak at the end of the movie, their actions still matter. The movie doesn't imply there's anything wrong with weakness. Even if they are like pawns on a chessboard, every pawn still matters. I think that's very empowering. [1] I think only one of them is pregnant, but they are all escaped slaves, so they're not in shape for direct combat.
- dionidium 5y ago
  Thanks, I'll definitely check that out.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Does it pass the Bechdel Test? I don't remember it well enough: 1. There are at least two women characters, with names and their own personalities (i.e., they aren't extras) 2. The women talk to each other 3. They talk to each other about something besides men. (If you aren't familiar, an incredible number of films fail - and yes, the 'reverse Bechdel Test' (substituting men for women) is passed by almost every film.)
  - darkerside 5y ago
    Yes https://bechdeltest.com/view/6242/mad_max:_fury_road/ https://bechdeltest.com/view/6242/mad_max:_fury_road/ Also, the Bechdel Test is incredibly misleading and distracts from the actual problem IMO, which is simple underrepresentation of women in movies. If only 20% of movie characters are women, probably 4% of dialogue (20% of 20%) would end up being women talking to each other. Solve representation, not content.

30649814 5y ago

>this particular approach to featuring women is ham-fisted and risible and probably counterproductive, in the end. Counterproductive in what way? I agree with you (and the linked video) that the approach is boring. But I also think it's effective.

wolverine876 5y ago

Men are portrayed this way all the time. Why would portraying women this way get so much attention and concern?

smegsicle 5y ago
showcasing female heroes as displaying exaggerated masculine abilities (in a sexualized female body) is belittling to actual feminine virtues
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Who cares what you think - or what I think? Who are you or anyone to define what these women do or want - and then weakly try to appeal to authority by assigning your opinions the words "actual feminine virtues"? Many men used to define those 'virtues' as not working, voting, having an opinion, and as being obedient, sexy, and sexually available to them (but not to other men!) - how convenient! > sexualized female body So? Does it intimidate you? Should they hide or show their bodies based on what you prefer, or on what you think is right? Who the f- are you (or I) to have an opinion on what they should do. Should I have an opinion on what you do? Meanwhile, women fight wars, run countries and corporations. They don't post much on Hacker News - look at this discussion of men saying what women should do, just like the old days. I wonder why we don't see more women here?
  - smegsicle 5y ago
    re-framing traditional feminine virtues (those things that most women are good at and enjoy, and which make families stronger and society flourish) as worth less than traditional masculine virtues is offensive to a lot of people, and is itself an appeal to an extremist ideology
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      > re-framing traditional feminine virtues (those things that most women are good at and enjoy, and which make families stronger and society flourish) as worth less than traditional masculine virtues is offensive to a lot of people, and is itself an appeal to an extremist ideology Which people? And so what if they are offended? These women should change what they do because you don't like it? Again, who are you (or I) or these putative offended people to tell these women what to do? > traditional feminine virtues Which don't exist, except in the minds of the people who want to control what other people do. > worth less than traditional masculine virtues Who compared anything between whatever you think masculine and feminine are? > an appeal to an extremist ideology So women working, getting educations, living independently of men, living their lives they way they please - that is extremist?
  - deleted 5y ago

zionic 5y ago

Deserves top comment

dragontamer 5y ago

I don't think gender has anything to do with it though. > it's so important to show that with utter, relentless completeness, that they've created characters that are magical, who don't need to overcome anything, characters who matter mostly as individuals, who have no duties or responsibilities to anyone else (most certainly not to any men). They're just total kick-ass take-no-prisoners empowered women. But what you've just described is Christopher Nolan's Batman (who loses to Bane physically early in the movie, and beats him by... physically overpowering Bane a bit later). The modern "superhero" genre is completely devoid of modern responsibilities. This wasn't true before... in the 70s, you had Clark who had to be a responsible person (show up to his job, write articles, etc. etc.). Despite being a magical alien from a futuristic society, Clark Kent had a number of "human" scenes, interacting with his boss, showing off responsible uses of his powers (ex: the Robbery scene, he manages to protect Lois Lane and the Robber, by pretending to be weak. Catching the bullet and pretending to go unconscious from fright). Today, Christopher Nolan's Batman (who is considered well written), leaves his company to go off on a Ninja-adventure. Leaves all the decision-making to a rival group of executives, and then magically takes back over the company despite his multi-year absence after siphoning funds to a secretive and poorly managed research-and-development corner of the company. And somehow the people who ran the company during his absence are the antagonists who need to be disposed of by the end of the 1st movie. ---------------- Don't get me wrong, Nolan's Batman is really interesting and fun to watch. But he's fun to watch BECAUSE he's an amoral asshole with crap moral lessons. Iron-man is another movie character who has this effect as well. Assholes who magically get their way are often interesting to watch. I wouldn't want any children following in the "lessons" of Nolan's Batman or 2008+ era Iron Man. They're awful moral characters. Ray (Star Wars, episodes 7-9) is positively a saint in comparison.

dionidium 5y ago
I upvoted both you and Buldak because I'm certain there's something to what you're saying. Few things are monocausal or completely explained by one factor. And surely these modern filmmaking tropes feedback on themselves and reinforce prevailing styles. Mine isn't any kind of grand unifying theory. I just think it's a factor.

clove 5y ago

What's the point of the third paragraph? To protect yourself from criticism?

dionidium 5y ago
From a certain kind of boring, predictable, repetitive criticism that's unresponsive to any of the actual points I made in my comment, yes. It either worked or I was too pessimistic, because the responses so far have been substantive and interesting!
- clove 5y ago
  And I was downvoted for asking the question.

Buldak 5y ago

You're right that it's not a coincidence, but that's more a reflection of the video's author than its subject matter. I agree that the depictions of female characters in question are shallow and uninteresting, but I wonder what you're watching if you think recent blockbuster movies with male leads are much better.

RobertMiller 5y ago
Classic action movies of the 80s often had very flat good-at-everything male heroes. What weaknesses does John McClain ever show in Die Hard? Vulnerability to walking barefoot on broken glass I guess, not much. There are obviously exceptions, but generally action movies don't have very interesting characters.
- dionidium 5y ago
  He's presented as a sad-sack alcoholic at the start of the movie!
  - RobertMiller 5y ago
    I guess I missed the alcoholism, I don't recall that. I remember he starts the movie with a bad relationship with his wife, but that's so he can win her back in the end with his counter-terrorism prowess (lol), not with any real character development that I remember.
- darkerside 5y ago
  I feel like this is a poor example. McClain is frustrated and outmatched throughout the entire movie, and slowly is able to outmaneuver his foes through wit and determination.

spywaregorilla 5y ago

I think captain marvel is an interesting one on this note. It is a problem in recent films that writers want to overpower women to make things fair, and they do a disservice to the women by doing so. Captain marvel seems to address this directly and in a more mature way. Her character does start weak. She is shown losing repeated to her officer in physical fights and feeling inferior. Later she becomes the most powerful person the MCU has ever seen and the officer turns out to be evil. The climax of captain marvel's character arc in her movie is him trying to bait her into fighting him on fair, unpowered terms and she basically says fuck you and blasts him with a laser. It's not explicitly a gender thing, but making a firm statement that she isn't intrinsically better than the guy without her powers but that she won't be defined by those metrics. It felt like a much better way to handle this message. Being explicit that other people's (traditional male) competencies don't get to define your self worth. It's a flip on the "Let's Fight Like Gentlemen" movie trope and frankly I thought it was a solid message which helped avoid this narrative pitfall even though captain marvel herself is by far the most overpowered female example of late.

sandworm101 5y ago
A character who is put down, becomes angry, then becomes powerful and carries that anger forward. Yawn. That is the background of about half of comic characters. Compare Captain America. He was week and abused, became powerful, but actively decides not to carry baggage. It is a fish-out-of-water character that has to constantly reconcile ideology with army-inspired pragmatism and loyalty. And he has a foil (Iron Man). That's a balanced character that I can like. Captain Marvel is a hyperbolic one-sided character. Those Superman characters are doomed to be boring. Batman-like characters with complex stories are unpredictable and therefore have the potential to be interesting. Gender has nothing to do with Captain Marvel's fundamental problems.
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  > A character who is put down, becomes angry, then becomes powerful and carries that anger forward. But... that's the opposite of what happens. It is addressing this exact concept and doing something different. He's literally asking to fight like a gentleman. The dialogue in this scene is literally "can you keep your emotions in check long enough to take me on, or will it get the better of you?" And she rejects his cliche premise entirely as a false dichotomy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KK1Kv0IzUg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KK1Kv0IzUg male centric story telling often uses combat ability as a metaphor for personal growth. Usually with literal dialogue or reflections on moral lessons used to emphasize this relationship with the tide of battle turning when the lesson is made clear. I thought it was great to show that, while captain marvel's growth arc is not acquisition of strength but in deriving her self worth from herself rather than from her officer. I agree it will be hard to make more captain marvel movies because there's very little that can challenge her, unless they're willing to make a movie without a significant violent conflict. Not easy. Captain america is a great character concept too. I liked the falcon's series dissection of it. He's explicitly not a supremacist, while acknowledging the ease with which his circumstances could allow that- and do create that within other superheroes.

dudul 5y ago

You can also note a parallel with female villains. Yeah they're bad, but you know, it's not their fault. They had such a tough life. And really are they that bad? And don't hear me wrong. I do love fleshed out bad guys/gals. I do want deep bad characters, but when the backstory can always be summarized with "she went through tough time because of bad men, so now yeah she's kind of bad" it doesn't really count.

dragontamer 5y ago
> You can also note a parallel with female villains. Yeah they're bad, but you know, it's not their fault. They had such a tough life. And really are they that bad? Popular Hollywood female villains, maybe. My favorite female villains are Granny Goodness and Amanda Waller from DC Comics. Granny Goodness runs an orphanage for Apokolips. On the surface, she's a sweet old lady who recruits superheroines into Darkseid's machinations. But when the going gets tough, she pulls out her super-powers to punish any orphan who goes against her will. There's no "terrible backstory" or "not her fault" going on here. Granny Goodness is 100% loyal to the "evil new gods" of Apokolips and is incredibly competent at her role in raising new villains for the evil gods. -------- Amanda Waller is gonna plant a bomb in your head and force you to do what she wants. Why? Cause that's what she does. She's the official government's response to counteract the rise of superheroes / metahumans (Superman / Flash / etc. etc.), and feverishly works to blackmail any prisoner into building her super team.
- Jiro 5y ago
  >Popular Hollywood female villains, maybe. Well, this is about "modern movies".
RobertMiller 5y ago
> Yeah they're bad, but you know, it's not their fault. They had such a tough life. And really are they that bad? A little bit of that can make for a good villain I think. Villains who were truly victims earlier in life, or have a lot of seemingly rational rhetoric to back up their position. But usually there's a point where the audience is told that yes, they really are bad, despite their background or arguments. Ma-Ma in Dredd or Solidus in MGS2 are examples that come to mind. Ma-Ma is a heavily scarred ex-prostitute and drug addict, but shamelessly has people tortured to death and thinks little of condemning thousands of innocents to death to protect herself. Solidus talks about taking the country back from the censorious AIs that control discourse and rig elections, but he's also a former warlord who trained child soldiers and has no remorse about it.

ReactiveJelly 5y ago

Have you seen the feminist reading of Mad Max: Fury Road? You might find it interesting. YouTube is not loading for me, but it's called "The avenging feminine": https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/9jzuci/bringing_back_whats_stolen_fury_road_and_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/9jzuci/bringing... My favorite part is something the essayist points out about the mothers [1] in Fury Road: They help in every fight. They shoot, they reload guns, they operate bolt cutters, they deny guns to enemies, they assist with _any_ light work that the buff action hero and heroine are too busy to do. And if there's nothing to do, they take cover without being asked. The mothers don't start weak and become strong, the movie isn't about that. In fact I don't think anyone in the movie gains strength. Nux has a heel-face turn, but that's all I remember for character change. Just because they're _side_ characters doesn't mean they _aren't_ characters. There's no scene (that I recall) where you have to ask, "What are the non-combatants doing right now? Standing and watching?" And even though they're still physically weak at the end of the movie, their actions still matter. The movie doesn't imply there's anything wrong with weakness. Even if they are like pawns on a chessboard, every pawn still matters. I think that's very empowering. [1] I think only one of them is pregnant, but they are all escaped slaves, so they're not in shape for direct combat.

dionidium 5y ago
Thanks, I'll definitely check that out.
wolverine876 5y ago
Does it pass the Bechdel Test? I don't remember it well enough: 1. There are at least two women characters, with names and their own personalities (i.e., they aren't extras) 2. The women talk to each other 3. They talk to each other about something besides men. (If you aren't familiar, an incredible number of films fail - and yes, the 'reverse Bechdel Test' (substituting men for women) is passed by almost every film.)
- darkerside 5y ago
  Yes https://bechdeltest.com/view/6242/mad_max:_fury_road/ https://bechdeltest.com/view/6242/mad_max:_fury_road/ Also, the Bechdel Test is incredibly misleading and distracts from the actual problem IMO, which is simple underrepresentation of women in movies. If only 20% of movie characters are women, probably 4% of dialogue (20% of 20%) would end up being women talking to each other. Solve representation, not content.