|
Post by BettyNewbie on Aug 17, 2016 19:03:29 GMT -5
A small article I wrote back in 2014.When Peter Capaldi recently took on the role of the 12th Doctor, many people complained that, yet, another white man was taking on the role when the Doctor could just as easily regenerate into a woman and/or person of color. One 11 year old girl, Jessica Ebner-Statt, was absolutely heartbroken when she found out about his casting, because she doesn't feel like there are any good female role models out there: www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10225006/Doctor-Who-I-was-really-hoping-for-a-new-female-hero-an-11-year-olds-take-on-Peter-Capaldi.html. It's easy to write this girl off as being overdramatic and hyperbolic. Surely, there has to be some strong female lead character already on TV who could inspire girls just as much as a female Doctor? And, then, you read an article like this: www.denofgeek.com/tv/female-leads/27597/where-are-the-female-leads-in-uk-geek-tv. While the article focuses on genre shows from the UK, the situation isn't a whole lot better in the US. While the late 1990s and early 2000s spawned a slew of geeky TV shows helmed by strong female leads, such as Xena, Buffy, Charmed, and Alias, none of these shows have aired new episodes since 2006 or earlier. On the flip side, the biggest things in US genre TV right now are Supernatural, Teen Wolf, and Arrow, all shows about dudes being dudes. True Blood and Vampire Diaries technically have female leads, but, let's face it, the real stars of those shows are the hot male vampire leads, and Sookie Stackhouse and Elena Gilbert aren't exactly Buffy Summers. (Plus, True Blood is locked away on HBO and wouldn't be appropriate for an 11 year old, anyways.) Granted, I don't think current TV is completely devoid of good female protagonists, but it seems you're more likely to find them on non-genre TV, nowadays. Pretty Little Liars, for example, has four compelling and well-developed female protagonists (one of whom is both gay and a woman of color), as well as a slew of interesting female secondary characters, none of whom have to play second-fiddle to a male character's story. But, pointing that out doesn't exactly help the girls whose interests lie towards sci-fi and fantasy, and PLL's women, however three-dimensional, aren't exactly intended to be role models. (Plus, PLL is, yet, another show an 11 year old probably shouldn't be watching.) What do you think? Is there a shortage of strong female protagonists in current genre TV, or is it all hyperbole?
|
|
|
Post by BettyNewbie on Aug 17, 2016 19:06:59 GMT -5
There's enough reason to believe that we've actually REGRESSED in the past 10 or so years when in comes to female representation outside of conventional primetime soaps. The reason so many shows from the 1990s and early 2000s pop up in discussions of strong female protagonists is because, let's face it, that era was a FANTASTIC time for strong, non-stereotypical female leads. 1995 brought us both Xena and Captain Janeway. 1997 gave us both Buffy Summers and Peta Wilson's Nikita. 1998 brought us the Charmed Ones, and 2001 gave us Sidney Bristow. Even younger girls had it good, too. 1994 gave them Alex Mack, 1996 brought them Sabrina Spellman, 1998 gave them the Powerpuff Girls, and 2002 gave them Kim Possible. Also, the Big Screen wasn't doing too shabby, either. Clueless, The Craft, and Scream were all huge hits and spawned countless imitators that were all similarly female-driven (but of varying levels of quality). And, then, sometime around 9/11, something changed, and not for the better. Suddenly, the biggest geek successes at the Big Screen were all either male-driven superhero franchises like X-Men and Spider-Man or male-driven epic fantasy franchises like Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. On the other hand, the female-driven Catwoman, Elektra, and Aeon Flux were all complete failures, near-permanently scaring Hollywood away from non-stereotypical female protagonists. On the Small Screen, the female-led shows from earlier years were dropping like flies, and they were being replaced by sausage-fests like Supernatural and Smallville. On the flip-side, newer female-led shows, like Birds of Prey and later, the Charlie's Angels reboot, were failing before they could even get off the ground. The CW managed to sort-of successfully revive Nikita with Maggie Q in 2010, but it was the exception to the rule. In the latter half of the 2000s, female leads saw somewhat of a return to both screens, but this new crop of protagonists--Bella Swan, Sookie Stackhouse, and Elena Gilbert--more closely resembled the weak, man-obsessed women of earlier eras and conventional dramas than they did Buffy or the Halliwells. The 2010s have made baby steps in the right direction with Katniss Everdeen, but we still have a long way to go. What in the hell happened?
|
|
|
Post by BettyNewbie on Aug 17, 2016 19:08:30 GMT -5
Here's something that I think really symbolizes the shift that happened... Do you know what was the highest-rated premiere on the WB before Smallville? It was that little show about three witches that we talk so much about: ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charmed) Charmed was consistently high-rated from 1998-2001, finishing all of its first three seasons in 2nd place on the network, beaten only by 7th Heaven. It was a show whose protagonists were essentially female versions of characters like Superman, people with incredible powers who were destined to save innocents and conquer the forces of evil. Yes, Charmed wasn't always the best-written, not even in its early years, but still, it was a show where women were kicking butt and getting to be the Big Damn Heroes instead of Damsels in Distress that a large chunk of the WB's audience liked. And, then, the 2001-2002 season happened, and Smallville both beat Charmed's old ratings record and swiped away the #2 position it had held on the network for three years, all the while Charmed, itself, started seeing its worst ratings slump ever at the time. Granted, Charmed was suffering from the loss of Shannen Doherty at the time, which had the bad fortune to roughly coincide with 9/11. But, still, even if Shannen had returned, would the show have maintained its ratings and 2nd place position in Season 4? There isn't proof of anything, but it wouldn't have been a surprise if the Halliwells had also lost viewers to teenage Clark Kent & friends. Charmed would die with the WB after 8 seasons, while Smallville would get 10 seasons on both the WB and CW. As long as Charmed lasted, Smallville still had it beat. In short, the viewers of 1998 wanted to see women saving the day, while the viewers of 2001 wanted to see Superman save the day. Superman would win out in the long term. Coincidences aside, the symbolism is obvious.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2016 19:25:08 GMT -5
Elektra is pretty high up in my list of best worst movies. But the fact it was a spin-off of another bad movie (Daredevil) was also a big turnoff. Do you mind it if the strong females are also sexy bombshells? I personally prefer it that way, but hey, I'm a straight man, lol. Ironically enough, Scarlett's Black Widow is a huge success, but Marvel still won't make a film with her. There's demand for strong females, but the studios don't care. Sadly, Natasha is not my favorite flavor of Scarlett (that would be Olivia from The Prestige), but she's a nice character.
|
|
|
Post by BettyNewbie on Aug 22, 2016 19:43:51 GMT -5
Elektra is pretty high up in my list of best worst movies. But the fact it was a spin-off of another bad movie (Daredevil) was also a big turnoff. Elektra vs Daredevil is a striking example of sexist double standards. Way too many people forget that Elektra was a spinoff of a terrible movie, so it was almost a no-brainer that it would stink. Yet, Daredevil has been allowed a 2nd chance on Netflix ( and has done extremely well), and the awfulness of the earlier movie has been almost entirely forgotten. Why don't female characters with bad movies ever get 2nd chances like this? The only example I can think of that even comes close is Supergirl, who had a flop movie in 1984 and then returned more than 30 years later as a successful TV show.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2016 21:14:22 GMT -5
Elektra is pretty high up in my list of best worst movies. But the fact it was a spin-off of another bad movie (Daredevil) was also a big turnoff. Elektra vs Daredevil is a striking example of sexist double standards. Way too many people forget that Elektra was a spinoff of a terrible movie, so it was almost a no-brainer that it would stink. Yet, Daredevil has been allowed a 2nd chance on Netflix ( and has done extremely well), and the awfulness of the earlier movie has been almost entirely forgotten. Why don't female characters with bad movies ever get 2nd chances like this? The only example I can think of that even comes close is Supergirl, who had a flop movie in 1984 and then returned more than 30 years later as a successful TV show. I think it was simply because Daredevil is the more prominent character in that universe. But it'd be nice to have an Elektra show because she kicks ass.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Aug 22, 2016 23:33:39 GMT -5
And I'm glad she's coming back for another season. I just wish she wasn't coming back alone.
|
|
|
Post by BettyNewbie on Aug 22, 2016 23:49:30 GMT -5
I just wish she wasn't coming back alone. Yeah, what happened with Agent Carter was sad. I think that show needed to be on Netflix or cable, where ratings don't matter nearly as much as on the big networks.
|
|
|
Post by adzpower on Aug 25, 2016 15:28:01 GMT -5
I've never had much trouble with this, granted I grew up with said female led shows BUT these days I think there are an absolute TON of great female chaarcters who aren't always necessarily the main stars of the show, in Arrow you have Laurel who was a strong fighter and great lawyer, and Felicity who is a computer genius, both good role models imo, they aren't on the team just for "show" is what I mean. Flash has Catelyn (smart) and Iris (clever journalist), and then you have Supergirl and the upcoming Wonder Woman movie (looks awesome). I'm not saying shows always get their female characters right, but I think if you know where to look, you'll find some good ones. I think the main problem with today is that young teenage girls don't want to watch shows about other girls, they want to see what they would call "hot shirtless guys", Arrow, Teen Wolf, Supernatural etc all have this to draw those veiwers in. We could do with some more strong female leads, but if the demand isn't there then what else can TV networks do?
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Apr 11, 2017 11:20:08 GMT -5
The show, Timeless, had a strong female lead character, Lucy Preston (played by Abigail Spencer).
I hope this show comes back for a second season. Supergirl shouldn't be all by herself as a strong female character.
|
|
|
Post by BettyNewbie on Apr 20, 2017 20:21:43 GMT -5
I think the main problem with today is that young teenage girls don't want to watch shows about other girls, they want to see what they would call "hot shirtless guys", Arrow, Teen Wolf, Supernatural etc all have this to draw those veiwers in. We could do with some more strong female leads, but if the demand isn't there then what else can TV networks do? Sad, but true. Look no further than Tumblr. Female-dominated site, and yet 90% of it is all about white male characters and white M/M ships with no room for anyone else. Female characters who potentially "threaten" the popular slash ship get endlessly bashed, and female-centric shows are either ignored or the fans still sideline the ladies to focus on male characters. (Just look at how much of Buffy fandom on Tumblr is centered around Angel/Spike slash.) Even in this day and age, women are still taught to identify with men and see other women as the enemy.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Apr 20, 2017 23:26:57 GMT -5
No doubt this is why many of the females characters on Supernatural get killed off. They threaten the "bromance". Even female characters that don't like men that way (yes, I'm still mad about Charlie).
|
|
|
Post by adzpower on Apr 23, 2017 4:21:47 GMT -5
Classic case on Arrow, where they killed off the popular Black Canary character to make way for the tumblr filled Oliver/Felicity relationship even though they had the chemistry of a soggy rag. The show suffered massive backlash and lost half its viewers. It was the final straw for some people, luckily it seems they are bringing the character back to life next season so hopefully things will improve.
|
|
|
Post by BettyNewbie on Apr 23, 2017 10:20:49 GMT -5
Classic case on Arrow, where they killed off the popular Black Canary character to make way for the tumblr filled Oliver/Felicity relationship even though they had the chemistry of a soggy rag. The show suffered massive backlash and lost half its viewers. It was the final straw for some people, luckily it seems they are bringing the character back to life next season so hopefully things will improve. This is why showrunners should NOT listen to bratty fans on social media and let them dictate how to write their show, IMO. It almost never ends well. This is likely why the few women in the MCU have mostly been either vanishing or getting killed off as well. Why, because they get in the way of the fan-favorite slash ships. Disgusting.
|
|
|
Post by adzpower on Apr 23, 2017 11:08:23 GMT -5
See, when it comes to the MCU, I feel a bit bad for them, because they don't have a lot to work with in terms of female characters, lets face it, Black Widow (the movie version) just isn't that interesting, not because she's a woman, but because she's just had shoddy writing. Whereas you can look at other fantastic female characters they have like Quake, Jessica Jones and Scarlet Witch, I suppose it helps that Quake is written primarily by the Whedon brothers, but still.
Did people really ship Natasha and Bruce together? When watching Age of Ultron I found that pairing very cringey, out of nowhere and they had about as much chemistry as a china doll. MCU suffers female character wise because a lot of their female heroes belong to other studios, Jean Grey, Storm, Sue Storm, She-Hulk etc. They had to cheat and make Wanda an experiment just to include her. They can't even use the name "Scarlet Witch" in the movies because Fox owns that name.
I suppose they were sold at a time when female heroes were at an all time low, no one thinking they could make any money off them. I'm happy times have changed, but if we want female heroes on the big screen I think we should be looking to DC, who as far as I know, do have all their own properties safely under ownership. They've already started the movement with Harley Quinn, Lois Lane and Wonder Woman, not to mention the recent announcement of Batgirl, hoping for many more.
And just today I saw Fox announce a Dark Phoenix movie, so it seems they want a piece of the action as well, here here!
|
|