Women and girls usually end up in a relationship by the end of the story and/or are the ones needing to be rescued. Its formulaic, boring and sexist due to the comparative lack of the opposite occurring. eg. men needing to be rescued.
Like… even if you did not give a single shit about sexism, its the same tired plot points over and over again. It has Hallmark channel writer energy. Create a second plot I beg you.
I agree with you on principle, but i feel it has reached a point where the circumvention of the classic tropes has created a new and also very formulaic stereotype: the “empowering“ woman. Must be strong, butch, evidently better than men in something typically associated with men, and if by any chance she is permitted to be classically feminine she must either be a lesbian or emotionally fucked up somehow. Bonus points for leather jacket and shades.
It is probably the better trope but i find it similarly boring at this point. Very performative and often with little relevance to the story being told.
I think it might be partially prettiness but I think it is mostly practicality. If the makeup is that difficult, it will take hours every day to put on. It can be hell on the actors. I remember reading about Peter Ustinov who played Hercule Poirot in “Murder on the Orient Express” but refused to do it for “Death on the Nile” because he did not want to have to wear that makeup in Egypt.
You have to make sure complicated makeup always looks consistent. It would have been really hard to do that in a series over multiple years.
One other example I can think of is Katniss in The Hunger Games. If you read the novel, her body was REALLY broken. I think her entire body was covered in burn scars. It would have been very hard to do that in the film consistently (though I will note that in the novels, the scars are not on her face. I saw it as symbolic of the inner scars of the Games).
So I think it is partially aesthetic but mostly practical.
Now, to be fair, in the Punisher TV show they also refused to make pretty boy Jigsaw actor look as fucked up as his face really SHOULD have looked according to the comics.
Also why some characters that NEED to be wearing masks or helmets conveniently are not. Like in race cars or in space. Or the face protection is unrealistic so we can still mostly see them.
There’s also some funny times where comic characters who can’t breathe in space are merely wearing a small covering of the mouth, and maybe nose, but not eyes/ears.
And this writing style often results in complete lack of character development. Because how would you develop a character that is ideal from the start?
That one is worse in my mind as baring steroids men will be physically larger and stronger than women. women should have motivetions other than marry a strong man (nothing wrong with wanting a good husband, I know many young girls looking for one - but please don’t be the cardboard that is all I want)
I recently read a collection of novels by a prominent 1960s science fiction writer. In three novels and 400 pages, I don’t think there was a single female character who advanced the plot other than by sexually entertaining a male character (Despite one of the books having a female title character, and another had a lot of minor female characters.) I know it’s a product of its era, but even then, there were more woman PhDs than men who’d been to space, so I think a good science fiction author ought to be able to at least imagine the possibility. I have nothing against female sexuality, but the most interesting women supplement it with some other talent.
Women and girls usually end up in a relationship by the end of the story and/or are the ones needing to be rescued. Its formulaic, boring and sexist due to the comparative lack of the opposite occurring. eg. men needing to be rescued.
Like… even if you did not give a single shit about sexism, its the same tired plot points over and over again. It has Hallmark channel writer energy. Create a second plot I beg you.
I agree with you on principle, but i feel it has reached a point where the circumvention of the classic tropes has created a new and also very formulaic stereotype: the “empowering“ woman. Must be strong, butch, evidently better than men in something typically associated with men, and if by any chance she is permitted to be classically feminine she must either be a lesbian or emotionally fucked up somehow. Bonus points for leather jacket and shades.
It is probably the better trope but i find it similarly boring at this point. Very performative and often with little relevance to the story being told.
Removed by mod
But that’s not specific to women, a similar example is Tyrion Lannister in A Song of Ice and Fire https://metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/mg_got_tyrion.png
That has to do with Hollywood wanting actors to look pretty and with costs of keeping effects realistic and cost efficient even on close ups.
I think it might be partially prettiness but I think it is mostly practicality. If the makeup is that difficult, it will take hours every day to put on. It can be hell on the actors. I remember reading about Peter Ustinov who played Hercule Poirot in “Murder on the Orient Express” but refused to do it for “Death on the Nile” because he did not want to have to wear that makeup in Egypt.
You have to make sure complicated makeup always looks consistent. It would have been really hard to do that in a series over multiple years.
One other example I can think of is Katniss in The Hunger Games. If you read the novel, her body was REALLY broken. I think her entire body was covered in burn scars. It would have been very hard to do that in the film consistently (though I will note that in the novels, the scars are not on her face. I saw it as symbolic of the inner scars of the Games).
So I think it is partially aesthetic but mostly practical.
Now, to be fair, in the Punisher TV show they also refused to make pretty boy Jigsaw actor look as fucked up as his face really SHOULD have looked according to the comics.
Also why some characters that NEED to be wearing masks or helmets conveniently are not. Like in race cars or in space. Or the face protection is unrealistic so we can still mostly see them.
There’s also some funny times where comic characters who can’t breathe in space are merely wearing a small covering of the mouth, and maybe nose, but not eyes/ears.
And this writing style often results in complete lack of character development. Because how would you develop a character that is ideal from the start?
Literally has to force in their own “I am no man” line.
That one is worse in my mind as baring steroids men will be physically larger and stronger than women. women should have motivetions other than marry a strong man (nothing wrong with wanting a good husband, I know many young girls looking for one - but please don’t be the cardboard that is all I want)
I recently read a collection of novels by a prominent 1960s science fiction writer. In three novels and 400 pages, I don’t think there was a single female character who advanced the plot other than by sexually entertaining a male character (Despite one of the books having a female title character, and another had a lot of minor female characters.) I know it’s a product of its era, but even then, there were more woman PhDs than men who’d been to space, so I think a good science fiction author ought to be able to at least imagine the possibility. I have nothing against female sexuality, but the most interesting women supplement it with some other talent.
It was the 1960s dude, if he’d written a novel with an empowered woman he probably would have been arrested and sent to Vietnam