Oh my god, another character showed her something that she later used as a weapon? Was SHE the one who USED it to KILL? If she did, then it doesn't matter how she found. Sorry, but you clearly saw a very different film than the rest of us did, or your just deliberately ignoring the facts, since you clearly think that female superhero films can never work. Arguing that Katniss wasn't an action heroine is just laughably absurd. Also, there's MORE THAN ONE kind of action hero.
Your point requires classifying a beehive as a weapon. Just fyi. Part of my statement of facts were that she needed help to win any fight, not just occasional help, but the vast majority of the time, unlike superheroes. Rue helping her beat those guys supports that, if you choose to call that a fight. So what
facts am I ignoring?
Now, that we have the facts down, lets get back to feelings, which is what you're talking about. What have I said that made you
feel as though I think female superhero films can never work? I certainly never said that, nor do I believe that, so be specific about your issue, because clearly I support female superhero films, and post my ideas for them in every such thread. You have an issue with the idea that Katniss isn't proof superheroine films would be popular? So if Katniss isn't proof, then female superhero films can never work? Is that your point? Because that's not mine. You're on your own on that one.
The same can be said for male heroes though so I don't get the point....
Spider-man gets his ass kicked each and every film
Batman and Iron man both rely on armor to stop from being basic humans and they are the two biggest franchises right now.
Again what's the point.
The point is
degree of vulnerability and extended periods of
invulnerability. Spider-Man also kicks mass amounts of arse, all on his own, in each and every film, multiple times, even in the final battle. The most popular heroines do not, unpopular ones do. Batman and Iron man rely on self-built armor they are enclosed in, but popular heroines rely on their loved ones (or soon to be loved ones), which they are often separated from to some degree.
So the level of dependence on others is greater, and there's no scenes of walking in and ransacking enemies like male superheroes have. Again, these are for the most popular ones, less popular heroines are very superheroic in terms of action.
So saying "well, Iron Man shoots people and Katniss shoots people, so what's the difference" is extremly simplistic to the point of uselessness.
The point is that Spider-Man, Iron Man and Batman have one thing in common: the word "man" in their names. Male characters are allowed to be vulnerable and to rely technology and other people for assistance. That just proves that they can adapt to circumstances, which makes them stronger in the eyes of the audience. When female characters do the same thing they are considered "helpless" and "weak".
What does that set of assumptions say about us, as a society?
You've got it backwards. In TDK3 and IM3, these heroes did the kind of running and hiding popular heroines do, and they got criticism for it "not enough ___man" - it didn't make them much less successful though. But when a heroine does that amount of running and hiding, she's called the next great action heroine, by those same people. The women are not considered helpless and weak, they are considered strong and popular, and men when they endure those things are considered helpless and weak.
So what does
that set of assumptions say about us as a society?
Whatever the exact merits of the Hunger Games, I think DrCosmic makes a compelling, if depressing, case for the status of female-led action movies in Hollywood. Which is to say, what the hell does it say about us, as a society, that success is directly proportional to how much the protagonist gets to be helpless?
THANK YOU! Someone got past "what is he trying to say" and actually read what was being explicitly said. Thank you, sir. I thought I was going crazy.
I think it ties into the feeling of vulnerability that women experience in real life. Because that, especially physical vulnerability, is such a big part of life, when it's not reflected in story, then it doesn't work. The other issue is that women generally don't have the same kind of power fantasies that men have, so male power fantasies applied to women don't have the same effect. People say, even in the link in the OP, "well, a hot babe kicking arse will sell" but history has shown that to not be true. That's just not two hours worth of fantasy, plain and simple.
And people get this. When you look at Wonder Woman, at her current popular comic, she's not a superhero in the sense that she kicks butt and takes names and saves the city and rescues the people. She's very much in a horror-type storyline, where she is the clear and far underdog, and it's all she can do to protect her young charge from these monstrous gods. She gets taken to hell, she has male companions that are every bit her equal, she can't fight back in most of her problems, but she wins with relationships and resourcefulness. She's not 'weak,' but the frame of the storyline is not at all like a male superhero's. Is that
depressing? No, it's just more difficult. The Wonder Woman DTV does show her kicking butt against Deimos, to be sure, but a big plot point is her getting saved by her supposed to be vastly inferior man who still somehow fights side by side with
Wonder Woman, and then she defeats Ares with resourcefulness, using his own attack against him, not martial skill or her powers, because she can't. She is hopelessly
hilariously outclassed in those areas and spends most of the last fight getting beat down. Speaking of, Black Widow defeats her friend, and gets to do a much more agile much more exhausting ground fight, but much of her development is her completely justifiable, but not shared by anyone else TERROR of Hulk, and her ultimate contribution is using the bad guys weapon against them. Was she weak, though? Or just vulnerable? I haven't read Donnick's Ms. Marvel much, but from what I've seen its more of the same.
Being strong
in that vulnerability is what makes real life women incredible, so that same strength in vulnerability is what makes fictional women compelling and interesting and popular. It makes them relatable to the women, and more than just a kinky fantasy for the men.
Does that make sense? Is that still depressing? Because in my mind, it creates an incredible opportunity, especially for Carol Danvers.
I feel the same way. Spider-Woman and She-Hulk were created by Stan Lee purely for legal reasons (to protect Marvel's copyright on the male heroes) and it shows in the characters' weird histories. Spider-Woman in particular is a mess of a character. The current (Ms.) Captain Marvel falls into the same category, which is one of many reasons I prefer Monica Rambeau to Carol Danvers. Monica at least has her own unique origin and powers that do not derive from a male superhero who preceded her. Originals are always preferable to knock-offs.
Yes, yes, yes. I love Monica. So awesome. So epic.
Spider-Woman and Ms. Marvel are especially redeemable though, I wouldn't count them out.
