Gender Reversal. Does it work?

Potatoeman · 26-02-2015 06:28PM

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

There's a whole world of films & literature outside the silly superhero bubble. Gritty's been done for centuries.

Follow the relies. I was responding to a poster saying Wonder Woman should be gritty. I disagree, I enjoy gritty but only where it fits and isnt shoehorned in.

Sleepy · 26-02-2015 06:29PM

smash wrote: »

Brave was actually a great movie. Strong female lead, not 'sexy' or even classically 'pretty' so to speak but girls didn't like it. They want to be a character from Frozen instead.

Some kids got it... my daughter loves Merida (though she loves Ana and Else too).

strobe wrote: »

You know why all those characters worked so well (well I've never seen kick-ass so exclude that) they were female, with female characteristics. Not just women playing male roles. Men and women in general terms have behavioural differences. You could no more drop a male actor into those roles without changing it a lot, basically creating an entirely different character but for some reason keeping the name, than you can drop a female actor into the male roles talked about and have them work without doing similar.

It's a stupid, lazy, irritating idea this role reversal stuff. People always bring up Ripley out of Alien in this discussion. They didn't just have Weaver play the role originally written as male, they completely re-wrote it from the foundations up to make it work as a woman . That's why it worked.

People don't want to see women acting just like men, because it's too unrealistic. They want good female characters that ARE female characters.

Totally agree! It's why the "Mrs Pacman" characters like Supergirl, Batgirl, Elektra, Cat Woman etc. never do well. The movies don't flop because the characters aren't girls, they flop because they're ****e characters.

I think it's a real shame that we never got to see Joss Whedon's Wonderwoman, If there's any man in hollywood who has a great track record of writing "strong women" characters it's Whedon. Warner Bros must be kicking themselves to have passed on it at the time!

Amica · 26-02-2015 06:32PM

Sleepy wrote: »

you've missed my point rather spectacularly. There's nothing wrong with having a woman playing a "badass" spy. She just can't play James Bond because his character is by definition an old-fashioned "man's man"

You should have made your point better. I just see James Bond and Bourne as spies. I wouldn't really see Bourne as "an old fashioned man's man" and I'm not sure the more modern Bond fits that description well either. (I'm thinking of the first Bond movie with Daniel Craig - that whole love & heartbreak story was a bit different to the older storylines). I'll admit though that I haven't seen any more recent Bond movies so I don't know if they've reverted to form or stuck with that tortured hero angle.

Look at the most popular show aimed at women recently, sex and the city. What drives the characters? Why is it so popular with women?

recent? Didn't that show end about a decade ago? And I wouldn't call sex and the city a love story!

People don't want to see women acting just like men, because it's too unrealistic. They want good female characters that ARE female characters.

Agreed. I have no need for Watson to suddenly morph into a female etc, but it would be nice to see more good stories about interesting female characters

seamus · 26-02-2015 06:38PM

I think the problem with the portrayal of women in traditionally male roles is not that these roles don't suit women, it's that they're often written poorly.

So they're written as excessively macho women, practically just making James Bond a woman without changing personality at all. An aloof and violent woman is not relatable to most people (and not attractive to most people), so it fails.

Likewise, if you go the other direction and make her too girly and stereotypical, she doesn't embody any fantasy in people. She's not a character that women grow up wanting to be or that men think would be great and so she's just not interesting.

James Bond is popular because he embodies a fantasy of people of the kind of person you could be; a super-intelligent, sauve, international jet-setter saving the world from evil.

There are plenty of examples of female action characters who've worked well, so it's perfectly possible for popular female action roles to exist. Sure you can "recast" existing characters, but you risk creating a character who's unrelatable because you'll try to make her similar enough to her alter-ego while rewriting the part for a woman.

limklad · 26-02-2015 06:41PM

Amica wrote: »

everybody's going on about about how ludicrous a female Bond would be, but what about Salt (Angelina Jolie)? Was that not about a female badass spy?

Yeah you've hit the nail on the head there. Little girls and grown women the world over aspire to be Kim Kardashian. That is the pinnacle of success for the entire gender. :rolleyes: Where's a face palm smiley when you need one?

I don't think a female character needs heavy involvement in her family's lives (any more so than a male character does) for me to relate to her. I find that a very old-fashioned notion - but I'm not sure if other people feel the same as I do there.

but that's kinda what need to change. Women aren't only interested in finding love; they have other interests and missions in life, the same as men do, but those 'other' interests and missions (as you rightly point out) are not adequately being portrayed in mainstream film I think

Angelina Jolie is no ordinary woman. She is outside the norm, a large outlier, when it comes to the female of our species. You are not comparing like with like.

Angelina Jolie is also very attractive and genuinely confident and heavily physically active and therefore more believable as a hero.
Angelina Jolie is not the type of person who as the question "Does my bum looks big in this?"
She is far more believable than having Kim Kardashian been a hero with her lipstick and make up posing in front of the camera, acting narcissistic.

seamus · 26-02-2015 06:43PM

limklad wrote: »

Angelina Jolie is no ordinary woman. She is outside the norm, a large outlier, when it comes to the female of our species. You are not comparing like with like.

She is also very attractive and genuinely confident.

-_-

Isn't that what we're talking about though? It's not like James Bond is a typical male, nor any of the men who have portrayed him.

The very reason why these characters are popular is because they embody a fantasy; for both sexes.

limklad · 26-02-2015 06:48PM

smash wrote: »

Wonder Woman: last episode aired in 1979
Charlie's Angels: last episode aired in 1981 - Film reboot in 200 was pretty awful and got shíte reviews.

Just two examples of action shows containing strong female leads that didn't really work beyond the era of when they were new. I just think that in general, girls/women don't want to be 'superheros'. They want to be feckin Kim Kardashian or something.

Charlie's Angels, you were not watching those shows because of their acting ability. It was their other assets that drew in the attention.

Amica · 26-02-2015 06:52PM

limklad wrote: »

Angelina Jolie is no ordinary woman. She is outside the norm, a large outlier, when it comes to the female of our species. You are not comparing like with like.

Angelina Jolie is also very attractive and genuinely confident and heavily physically active and therefore more believable as a hero.
Angelina Jolie is not the type of person who as the question "Does my bum looks big in this?"
She is far more believable than having Kim Kardashian been a hero with her lipstick and make up posing in front of the camera, acting narcissistic.

what?

I didn't compare Angelina Jolie with Kim Kardashian! I compared her to James Bond (who is certainly not representative of an "ordinary man")

Arne_Saknussem · 26-02-2015 06:53PM

Potatoeman wrote: »

Follow the relies. I was responding to a poster saying Wonder Woman should be gritty. I disagree, I enjoy gritty but only where it fits and isnt shoehorned in.

i see, retracted.

syklops · 26-02-2015 07:08PM

Saw this yesterday

They are remaking MacGuyver and he will be a girl. A smart, spunky engineer who women can look up to.

There are numerous projects in various IT companies Ive worked in, trying to encourage more women into Technology and into Tech jobs. In one place I worked there was even a women only monthly meetup - something which would be frowned upon if it was men only.

I think Sleepy has hit the nail on the head, its not that there arent any strong female characters, its that the secondary ones that exist often suck.

There are actually plenty of strong female characters around. Alias was a hit spy drama in the 90s starring Jennifer Garner. The girl with the Dragon Tattoo stared in 3 books, 3 straight to TV movies and 1 hollywood blockbuster, Scarlett Johansen recently starred as Lucy in the movie of the same name, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Miss Marple, Hetty Wainthropp, Jessica Fletcher, Cagney and Lacey, Leela from Futurama, Kate from Lost.

Theres loads of strong women in interesting, often male dominated jobs, the thing Hollywood, and TV-land is missing is an original idea.

Amica wrote:

everybody's going on about about how ludicrous a female Bond would be, but what about Salt (Angelina Jolie)? Was that not about a female badass spy?

The only reason a female James Bond would be silly is because James Bond has a history, a culture spanning forty years. Over the years he has shared the screen with many strong female characters, many who saved his (as opposed to made him) bacon a few times, and a few who nearly killed him.

Potatoeman · 26-02-2015 08:07PM

pwurple wrote: »

Those are pretty good examples of what's wrong with female action heroes. Compare batman to wonder woman. Batman has a bit of grit, background, depth. Wonderwoman is essentially a skimpy outfit. Who the heck wants to watch an outfit every week? The characters need a good bit of suffering to hold anyone's interest for a prolonged time. Sometimes I think film/media industry has such an aversion to making a female character look vaguely unsexy for five minutes, that they make the character just plain boring, as she ends up completely one dimensional.

Here is where Wonder Woman comes from. A 1930's feminist polygamist that also invented the lied detector.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2628-All-The-World-Is-Waiting

pwurple · 26-02-2015 09:28PM

Potatoeman wrote: »

Follow the relies. I was responding to a poster saying Wonder Woman should be gritty. I disagree, I enjoy gritty but only where it fits and isnt shoehorned in.

Uh, i didn't say wonderwoman should be gritty. I said wonderwoman was rubbish because it was one dimensional.

Characters of any gender are more watchable when they are interesting for their story... when characters are in any film for just their looks, interest wanes fast. Engaging the brain is much more entertaining than just the eyeballs. I'd imagine that's all the 'feminists' on the radio were saying. They were expressing boredom with the zillions of vapid non-characters there as decoration, instead of more juicy interesting characters.

If anyone said it to me, I'd be telling them go off and write some. Bound to be money to be made in that gap in the market.

Pat Mustard · 26-02-2015 09:48PM

syklops wrote: »

Saw this yesterday

They are remaking MacGuyver and he will be a girl. A smart, spunky engineer who women can look up to.

McGalver, I suppose.

tritium · 26-02-2015 11:59PM

syklops wrote: »

Saw this yesterday

They are remaking MacGuyver and he will be a girl. A smart, spunky engineer who women can look up to.
.

Ah yeah of course they are. Much more important to do something to bring women into STEM subjects and address the gender imbalance in favour of men there than to address the overall gender imbalance in favour of women in the educational system across most college courses ( and indeed even in second level success rates)

Henry9 · 27-02-2015 12:07AM

syklops wrote: »

Saw this yesterday

They are remaking MacGuyver and he will be a girl. A smart, spunky engineer who women can look up to.

Oh God. Sassy, don't forget sassy.
Why do role models need to have the same sexual organs? Do they think girls are all feeble minded? Did all the female fans of Star Trek become counsellors and doctors while the male fans became engineers? Are no women in science because of that show?

syklops wrote: »

There are numerous projects in various IT companies Ive worked in, trying to encourage more women into Technology and into Tech jobs. In one place I worked there was even a women only monthly meetup - something which would be frowned upon if it was men only.

I worked in a company like that. It always struck me as tokenism and patronising, because it has no wider relevance. It also seemed to attract the sharp elbowed strivers who were more keen to 'raise their profile', or be seen to jump in whole heartedly with whatever corporate bullsh1t was going on.

Anyway, let them remake what they want, they've no original ideas anyway. Everything is remakes now.

the_syco · 27-02-2015 12:11AM

eviltwin wrote: »

Do you mean changing existing characters as in the suggestion that James Bond be played by a woman or just female superheroes and that kind of thing? I don't believe a character that is known as male/female needs to be changed and won't work as people know and love that character as they are but see no problem with introducing new characters that go against the norm.

They're making a female Mcgyver.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/macgyver-returns-but-with-a-difference-handyman-hero-of-classic-1980s-tv-series-to-be-recast-as-a-woman-10067997.html

Henry9 · 27-02-2015 12:20AM

tritium wrote: »

Ah yeah of course they are. Much more important to do something to bring women into STEM subjects and address the gender imbalance in favour of men there than to address the overall gender imbalance in favour of women in the educational system across most college courses ( and indeed even in second level success rates)

They'll just do what they did with Maths, dumb it down, make it more 'relevant', set essay questions on 'female role models', and watch the standards plummet.
Coincidence probably.

Anyway, no, reversal doesn't work.
Imagine Scooby Doo with the genders reversed.
Exactly.

DoYouEvenLift · 27-02-2015 01:41AM

Potatoeman wrote: »

Batman started the whole gritty thing in movies but it had a stage in comics too. Superman, Spiderman and Wonder Woman are not suitable gritty characters Batman sure. Superman for example is supposed to be an idealist and gritty does not sit well on him.

Spiderman could be done excellently with a similarly gritty and serious tone to TDK trilogy. It all stems from his uncle being shot, just like Bruce Wayne's parents. The thing is, I'm not sure many fans would be okay with it because for a spiderman to be made like this they'd really have to stray from the comics/source material. It'd also have to be done and planned out really well and since superhero movies are churned out within a year or two these days that's the most unlikely part.

Cookie_Monster · 27-02-2015 04:29AM

Don't forget too that it was tried with Picard and we ended up with Janeway

Gits_bone · 27-02-2015 12:53PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What's wrong with the "if men can do it, women can too" attitude? I'm against altering IPs in this way and would rather see new ones though.

Because just because a man can do it doesn't mean a woman can do it too.

Gits_bone · 27-02-2015 12:54PM

Also if Jane Bond did become a thing, would the films end with her scissoring?

ancapailldorcha · 27-02-2015 12:54PM

Gits_bone wrote: »

Because just because a man can do it doesn't mean a woman can do it too.

Care to elaborate?

Sleepy · 27-02-2015 01:00PM

syklops wrote: »

Saw this yesterday

They are remaking MacGuyver and he will be a girl. A smart, spunky engineer who women can look up to.

Reading the article, they're not gender swapping MacGuyver himself, they're looking to create the "next MacGuyver" who they want to be female. It's a very obvious way to do this but it wouldn't surprise me if it was his daughter... or perhaps the daughter of Jack Dalton (his pilot friend) and have Richard Dean Anderson return for some of the first season to establish a history of MacGuyver having been her mentor in the Phoenix Foundation.

This is one situation where swapping the gender of the lead character could actually work imo. MacGuyver was never the most macho of heroes. He understood violence but eschewed it and thought his way out of every obstacle put before him. It could be an interesting twist to flip this and have the female lead favour using her brain rather than her "feminine charms" to get what she wants imo. For a generation of girls growing up with the Kardashians, Jordan and their ilk all over the media, it might be a positive thing to give them a female role model who values her intelligence and creativity more than her hair/nails/tits.

(yeah, I was a massive MacGuyver fan as a kid, so maybe I'm a little biased on this one because I'd love my kids to have a show like it to watch but the original series have aged terribly so I'd be open to a new version of it)

The only reason a female James Bond would be silly is because James Bond has a history, a culture spanning forty years.

That's exactly it. Changing a characters gender requires changing their personality, history and culture. Taking the basic template of a character and making a new character based on it is fine imo: the Bourne movies did this brilliantly to create an American "Bond". To do this, they had to change large parts of the character: his public school/oxbridge background, his mysogny, heavy drinking and add others: the special forces all American hero, krav maga background and his emotional problems etc. It worked so well that when it came to re-booting Bond with Daniel Craig, parts of the Bourne character noticeably came into his persona: the close quarters combat training and the emotional issues.

Gits_bone · 27-02-2015 01:00PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Care to elaborate?

Men are the stronger sex physically.

The thing about Bond is you feel he is the smartest/strongest/fastest man in the world.

Woudn't feel right for me seeing a woman outmuscle/outrun villains.

The_Captain · 27-02-2015 01:01PM

tritium wrote: »

Ah yeah of course they are. Much more important to do something to bring women into STEM subjects and address the gender imbalance in favour of men there than to address the overall gender imbalance in favour of women in the educational system across most college courses ( and indeed even in second level success rates)

Don't know much about the T and M to be honest, but in my experience there's no particular shortage of girls in science and engineering.

But yeah, bit weird that girl outperform boys in about 17 Leaving Cert subjects but the only focus is on how to end the gender disparity in maths.

A Neurotic · 27-02-2015 01:03PM

smash wrote: »

Wonder Woman: last episode aired in 1979
Charlie's Angels: last episode aired in 1981 - Film reboot in 200 was pretty awful and got shíte reviews.

Just two examples of action shows containing strong female leads that didn't really work beyond the era of when they were new. I just think that in general, girls/women don't want to be 'superheros'. They want to be feckin Kim Kardashian or something.

OK, I'm out. Done with this thread. Done with this forum. So done.

ancapailldorcha · 27-02-2015 01:05PM

Gits_bone wrote: »

Men are the stronger sex physically.

The thing about Bond is you feel he is the smartest/strongest/fastest man in the world.

Woudn't feel right for me seeing a woman outmuscle/outrun villains.

Physical strength isn't the be all and end all for most action films when you factor in things like guns, martial arts and so on...

Pat Mustard · 27-02-2015 01:20PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Physical strength isn't the be all and end all for most action films when you factor in things like guns, martial arts and so on...

Probably an extreme example but Gina Carano looked very convincing in Haywire, apart from one ridiculous fight scene where she ran up a wall.

(I'm aware of her Muay Thai/MMA credentials btw).

smash · 27-02-2015 01:20PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Physical strength isn't the be all and end all for most action films when you factor in things like guns, martial arts and so on...

Point in hand: Kill Bill. What a great flick!

eviltwin · 27-02-2015 01:27PM

Gits_bone wrote: »

Men are the stronger sex physically.

The thing about Bond is you feel he is the smartest/strongest/fastest man in the world.

Woudn't feel right for me seeing a woman outmuscle/outrun villains.

I suppose it depends on what your having yourself. I don't personally go in for movies where there is a lot of physical stuff, I prefer my action heroes to use their brains as much as their brawn. I think one of the reasons Bond has had such a successful reboot is that it had to compete with the Bourne franchise which was excellent, you take a normal looking guy and put him in an action role and it worked. Who would ever have thought Matt Damon would make a plausible action man? Someone mentioned the Angelina Jolie movie Salt, I didn't enjoy it myself but many of my male friends loved it. Maybe age plays a part too, its refreshing to see a lot of the teen movies action flicks have male and females equally as skilled as each other, the Hunger Games and Divergent series in particular. Its good to see.

Gender Reversal. Does it work?

Comments