Girls in Action Movies / Bad SW Spaceships

Well, then there's modern action movies generally sucking ass regardless of how the protagonist looks like. I think that many writers have presented good points why exactly that's the case. Here's a decent rundown (albeit a tad long).

First off - I don't think that apart from looking the part, very few action movie heroes (and baddies) have distinguishable gender. Usually they are a walking heap of tropes which we have learned to attribute to manliness/male-ness. What movies usually lack is a relatable hero, be it male or female. Lately the trend has been to make the hero godlike with him/her never being in real danger.

Anyhow - in your opinion what are female action hero exclusive traits/tropes?

 

I'll kindly disagree. Leeloo and Corbin needed to fall in love with each other. Now I suppose if you want two men fall in love with each other, well that's fine. But then you're making a gay couple for the sake of making a gay couple the same way you're making a female action lead for the sake of making a female action lead.

I'm see a lot of "why", and I'm thinking "why not"

I way prefer Jyn in Rogue One, then Rey in Force Awakens. But I do think Rey might be a child of the force like Anakin was, which might send a message. And that message is, the force is sending something and a balancing factor...

 

The problem is they can't. All these plot lines have deep cultural connections to the human story telling tradition. There's really only a few archetypes that story tellers can give you.... and they're all reliant on gender (which may be a social construct, but is informed by genetic and biological constraints). This stuff is hard-coded into us folks. You can't just make Luke a girl and have "all else be the same", it's a total hack job that is at a total disconnect with reality. There's a reason Gilgamesh had a penis.

 

In every sport the best men beat the best women. The Marines just opened up basic training to women and had a hell of a time passing anyone. Throughout history, most soldiers and warriors have been men. Men are stronger and more athletic than women, on average. These are facts. Therefore men are more compelling and believable in action roles than women.

 

Just because men generally have more upper torso strength does not take away the fact that many, many, many women in the world could kick some serious ass.

There should be no problem in finding that a women could be the lead in an action movie is believable.

 

Yes, it is obvious that the average man has physical capabilities that are different from the average woman. But this has nothing to do with a how compelling and believable a particular character is in film. If we're talking about action movies that rely on women being in traditionally male combat roles, which is what you seem to be stuck on, there are very good examples of stories that work. To name three:

1. Kill Bill - @Marvey already mentioned this one. Uma Thurman is completely believable and compelling in the lead. So is Lucy Liu. There is also the visual affect of seeing characters that read as very traditionally feminine enthusiastically perform the violence that is usually reserved for men. This is not an accident and it works well.

2. Haywire - Already mentioned this one before. This is another "woman in a man's world" story, but Gina Carano fits in. Her character would have passed all of the military standards you are talking about. She is specifically written and performed as the type of character that would be able to do this, and it works.

3. Edge of Tomorrow - Emily Blunt is also a "woman in a man's world" here and is completely believable in the role.

Maybe try watching some of these and see what you think.

 

These are exceptions. Action is based on violence and men are better at it than women. Hence there are far more believable male action characters than female ones.

Though I wouldn't categorize any Tarantino character as believable.

 

Gilgamesh had a penis because many women did not have equal status among men in many cultures during that time. There is also some evidence that points to Gilgamesh may have been a real king, though obviously his exploits are greatly exaggerated.

I haven't seen return of the Jedi in awhile, but based on the first two, it wouldn't have been hard to make Luke a girl with a couple other changes, but that's just my opinion. The small part of my post that you highlighted was in response to others saying that a girl lead shouldn't be able to be swapped with a boy so easily. I think that films, particularly poorly written films, could sometimes swap either gender.

I definitely believe women could fit many of the basic story telling in your link. Fit those exact stories? Some for sure. But fit the archetypes? Absolutely.

 

That depends on what you mean by "believable." If you mean believable in the sense of: my next door neighbor is just like Beatrix Kiddo, then that's obvious, but is a pretty trivial thing to get hung up on. In that sense, there is also nothing believable about Jason Bourne, Bruce Wayne, etc.

If you mean something more like "convincing in the context of the story," then I think you're wrong. Tarantino's successful characters are imaginative and fantastical, but they are utterly convincing and believable within the context of their stories. So are the three women in the movies I mentioned above.

 

And lower body strength. And explosiveness. And speed.

I disagree completely on Tarantino, but I think he's incredibly overrated. People don't behave like humans in his movies. He just creates characters to be cool, as vehicles for his self consciously witty dialogue, not to be believable as human beings. Consequently they have paper-thin depth.

 

Leave Tarantino aside if you like. The point still stands for the other two. And here are some more if you need some more things to watch: Gravity, Aliens, Terminator 2, Zero Dark Thirty, Winter's Bone, Hunger Games. All with women doing things are traditionally only things men get to do, and all entertaining, convincing, compelling.

 

Swedish Millenium Trilogy films/books are pretty good for a nice fem-hero piece.

Also - the f**k does "believable" have to do with action cinema? It has to be immersive and the hero must be relatable. Is a female fighter less believable than say... a lightsaber? And you don't have to be The Mountain to inflict damage, especially when you have various implements which don't rely on raw physical strength.

 

Because some women have masculine qualities. Some have more feminine qualities. I don't see this as an either/or situation.

This can also be blamed on poor writing, but I think you are over-generalizing.

Again though, why must a woman need an explanation? Just because we are used to seeing the role dominated by men?

 

So, are political discussions permissible so long as they're posted within the Random Thoughts board? Because that's what this is. And that's fine. But it seems like a break with a rather reasonable SOP.

 

Woah woah woah. Banter about Hollywood-gender politics is different from 2016 electoral politics. Let's all keep our hats on...