SHIELD Director Coulson
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Cherokee, NC
Re: Female Superheores On Screen
Originally Posted by DrCosmic
Let's get some facts straight, then:
1.) Katniss got into two fights, Tresh (Saved) and Final Boy (freed Peetah, then Peetah beat him). Watch the movie again. In both cases, she was far inferior physically and did not win the fight, unless you want to say Peetah AND Katniss beat the last kid. Maybe you want to say Katniss AND the Big Guy beat Thresh, lol! She was extremely vulnerable, but still strong willed and that's what made her more interesting. This mythical superheroic action figure in THG is all in your head.
2.) Katniss had opportunities to get into other fights. She ran, even from FoxFire, because she's not superheroic at all in any way. That was the point, that's what made her interesting.
3) The Hunger Games is not classified as an action movie anywhere reputable.
So now that we have actual facts straight, lets talk about feelings, I think you might get them confused. Katniss, and other popular heroines feel strong because they have strong personalities, but they are actually physically weak. This is true of Ripley and Sarah Connor as well. Even Alice when she first started out, and Selene didn't even fight her final bad guy in her first film.They cannot face their final villain in single combat like a superhero, they need to be saved, by men (Which is part of the fantasy that people like, by the way), and then become resourceful and lucky in order to win the day. That's what makes female heroes interesting, that vulnerability. It is there in every successful female heroine, more pronounced in the most popular ones, like Katniss, and less pronounced in the less popular ones like Charlie's Angels. THG didn't show anything new, they just did cool adaptation of a long standing popular girl-somehow-survives-all-the-killing-of-her-friends-and-defeats-the-monster/whatever-through-resourcefulness-and-friendship which is as old as the horror genre. It's not new, it's not superheroic, it's not action.
You know who did have superheroic qualities and were in actual action movies (not just movies with some action, like any Horror film): Haywire. Ultraviolet. Elektra. Catwoman. You see where I'm going.
You may say, 'well just adapt it different,' but that doesn't make sense. All the popular heroines have this vulnerability in common. All the superheroines do not have this vulnerability in common. If you adapt She-Hulk into someone who gets repeatedly saved from the enemy of the film (laughable in itself, and by who???) you're adapting her wrong, but if you make a sort of superpowered super-hot badarse chick who can handle everything on her own, you're adapting an uninteresting character, because on some level, you're just adapting fanservice, which is not worth $10 and 2 hours of anyone's time. So how do you solve that problem? "Just do it better" isn't an answer, anymore than "Just stop fighting" will get us world peace.
You also may note that Alice and Ripley got power ups as their series' progressed. That's an interesting alternative that would be more than a bit weird for a superhero movie... the hero doesn't get powers until the sequel? And as those two cases indicate, there's a right and wrong way to do that.
There is an exception though. That exception is Kill Bill. She is a character who is physically capable who's vulnerabilities are more superheroic. Amnesia, lost children, well known stuff. This is another example of it taking a Tarantino to do a female superheroine right, but the $30M budget wouldn't allow a studio to woo a super-talented director, would it? But that's the kind of budget that works for an action heroine movie. THAT movie proved something, that with a great director and a great actress, you can have modest success without the extreme vulnerability of other popular heroines that is completely contrary to superheroics. THG is no more relevant to superhero movie discussion than Alien is. It doesn't prove anything further, less in fact. Tomb Raider is another Good+great=modest example, so that's two exceptions.
And remember, this discussion stems from the claim that Katniss is an example of the kind of hero people would want from a superheroine and I'm illustrating how that's simply not true, and responding to responses. If it's not an important point, then agree, and we can move on to the next topic. If you have questions about what I'm saying, please ask instead of trying to pull something extra out of the statements contrary to what is clearly there. Apparently, it takes a lot of detail for what really seems a very obvious point, even though it removes the much loved idea that THG proves something about female superhero films.
I feel similarly, but rally do think Spider-Woman (perhaps under the name Arachne), could make for a really strong low-budget superhero film akin to Underworld or Resident Evil or even Alien, or some of these other successful action girl franchises.
And then Ms. Marvel in phase 4, I think that'd be uber hot if they were like, yeah, we heard you, so we got you TWO! That'd be awesome.
Good god, you're all over the place here. I'm not even exactly sure what you're trying to argue amidst all that, but I'll address a couple of items that you seem to dwell on:
1) Nobody said Katniss was a "superhero," as far as I can tell from the thread. *I* certainly didn't. But she *is* a heroine, a strong one, and has all the hallmarks of a classic hero, male *or* female. Does she need "saving" from time to time? Sure. So do the guys, even the best of 'em --- Arnold, Stallone, Clint, Statham, Bond, you name it. Hell, check out the IM3 ***** threads, there's whole subfora whining about the fact that Pepper always pulls Tony Stark's ass out of the fire and kills his villains for him. It's just Action Movie 101 --- at some point, the hero's life has to be in danger, and an unexpected ally (even Fate/Chance/Pure Dumb Luck) has to intervene to save him. That doesn't make Katniss --- or any other heroine --- *any* different or any less a hero than any male you care to name.
All the popular heroines have this vulnerability in common. All the superheroines do not have this vulnerability in common. If you adapt She-Hulk into someone who gets repeatedly saved from the enemy of the film (laughable in itself, and by who???) you're adapting her wrong, but if you make a sort of superpowered super-hot badarse chick who can handle everything on her own, you're adapting an uninteresting character, because on some level, you're just adapting fanservice, which is not worth $10 and 2 hours of anyone's time.
Again: why should this "rule" apply only to women and not men? You think that heroes --- even of the Man of Steel variety --- don't have vulnerabilities, too? Both physical, and emotional/mental? You think an invincible male hero who always gets his man and never loses a battle and whose life is never in any real danger would ever work? Of course not. Nobody wants to see an uber, period....male *or* female. But there's absolutely no reason that a heroine should be subject to girly-girl weakness just because she has a different set of genitalia than ol' Clark Kent over there.
THE COTTON AVENGERS
...They move like slick cotton on oil.