With a project like this you don't just start with your big hitter because then you don't have anything to build to.
There's a big difference between not opening with your big hitter straight off, and opening with a whimper rather than a bang. You can open strong without giving away your entire hand - yeah, if we judged every movie by it's first fifteen minutes, every review would be bad. However, if every movie opened this weakly, everybody would just come into the theatre 15 minutes late.
if we judged every movie by it's first fifteen minutes, every review would be bad.
There are some movies where I would pay full price for the first 15 minutes. In fact, there are Japanese cartoons I've bought having only seen the opening credits and if I was paying attention, the DVD cover.
It must be "that time of the month" for some dudes.
^_^
Frankly, I think the video does a good job at laying the foundations. The message was clear: "Creating disempowered female characters, solely for the sake of your male character's story arc, is overused, lazy, and creates negative stereotypes for real women". Regardless of my issues/non-issues with her presentation (specifically the use of "yeah" when something sucks, without actually breaking down why it sucks), I appreciate her dissecting media for the tropes that are so entrenched that we take them for granted.
What makes a good female character? It is not that a female character must be infallible, but authentic. I appreciate Ghibli's female characters, although they, too, can be problematic and formulaic. How much detail is dedicated to explaining female characters' decisions/situations, versus taken for granted? Do male characters inexplicably act more rationally/autonomously/capably/self-interestedly on a regular basis by contrast? Trying to distill the essence of womanhood into a character is inherently problematic, because it assumes the premise that women are different from men, can be distilled, and "menhood" is somehow currently portrayed. Well-written male characters act uniquely, with unique motivations linked not to their gender, but to their personality, priorities, situation, fears, and ambitions (which CAN be linked to gender, just not by default). Now just replace "male" with "female" and put 50% of them in your media.
Let's discuss Claire Underwood in contrast to Cersei Lannister, Esmenet, and Lady Eboshi.
Let's discuss Claire Underwood in contrast to Cersei Lannister, Esmenet, and Lady Eboshi.
Other than Esmenet since I only read the first book, I can totally get into a good discussion about the other three. All of them are great characters, even though you may not like them.
I think the biggest issue facing modern womyn now is the issue that they cannot pee while standing up. Discuss.
This is truly troubling, particularly regarding line times and public bathroom efficiency. So many lost work hours!
Let's discuss Claire Underwood in contrast to Cersei Lannister, Esmenet, and Lady Eboshi.
Other than Esmenet since I only read the first book, I can totally get into a good discussion about the other three. All of them are great characters, even though you may not like them.
Are they convincing female characters? For example, I'm curious to see the outcome of the "biological clock" plot arc for Claire. This is a subject many shows handle poorly. Why does she want a baby? Legacy? Loneliness? I think for her, biology alone would be an absolute cop-out. And she must know that Frank hates children.
Cersei: I think she's a little too stereotypically woman-crazy. I really liked her originally, because she could play the big leagues, but her emotional world revolves around men: her ever-disappointed father, the loss of her brother's love, the need to protect her children. And with Jaime essentially gone and King Suck II dead, she loses her shit? I would find a slow descent into madness far more believable, even if I dislike the woman-based madness premise. Even Empress Irene went crazy in the manner of most powerful crazy ancients: trying to maintain her power, killing her lovers and son.
Esmenet: It's too bad you haven't read the other books, because I think Esmenet is a classic case of viable female character thrown away for betterment of male character plot. Plus, Bakker uses a supernatural-rape trope, and she follows somewhat of a Cersei Lannister woman-crazy arc.
Lady Eboshi: She is definitely a twist on the woman as nurturer-protector trope. My main issue with her, is the story itself: she's embroiled in an environmental cat-fight with another girl and a man has to come in and break it up. Neither she nor San have the ability to see past their emotional motivations to resolve the problem themselves. By contrast, they have sub-par agency to Ashitaka.
I thought the first episode was pretty good overall. I mostly just listened to it so I probably didn't notice any visual inconsistencies if there were any. It'll probably get better as she gets more feedback and hoop earrings.
First video is mediocre, but GUYS it's the first in a series.
A series she's already done before.
Don't be daft. The series is exactly what she pitched as the Kickstarter, and it is supposed to stand alone in case people want to show it to others who are unfamiliar with her previous work.
I don't see ANYBODY complaining about a kickstarter project to compile and publish a book of webcomics that already existed. This is no different. She's doing exactly what she said she would in the project. Don't throw money at it if you don't think it's a good project. I didn't fund it because I don't really care about it (also I'm poor), so I'm certainly not going to sit here and bitch about how it's not what I expected. If you paid for it and this is not what you expected, then you need to increase your reading comprehension skills.
She has done this video series in the past, but with movies instead of video games. Thus, it being the first episode (and her first time) is not a valid excuse for poor execution. That was Nine's argument.
Cersei: I think she's a little too stereotypically woman-crazy. I really liked her originally, because she could play the big leagues, but her emotional world revolves around men: her ever-disappointed father, the loss of her brother's love, the need to protect her children. And with Jaime essentially gone and King Suck II dead, she loses her shit? I would find a slow descent into madness far more believable, even if I dislike the woman-based madness premise. Even Empress Irene went crazy in the manner of most powerful crazy ancients: trying to maintain her power, killing her lovers and son.
I am not sure what "stereotypically woman-crazy" means. Could you help me out?
I am trying to think if the genders of all characters were reversed and a guy was in that situation and reacted similarly if it would seem out of place? (I am assuming that everyone had read the last book so yeah, spoilers). A guy's sister-lover leaves him, other sister killed his daughter and then his mom, his son is sent away, and he gives up most of his power to the church leaving him all alone. Would could crazy seem out of place? I think not myself.
And was Irene really any different then Viserys Targaryen?
Are they convincing female characters? For example, I'm curious to see the outcome of the "biological clock" plot arc for Claire. This is a subject many shows handle poorly. Why does she want a baby? Legacy? Loneliness? I think for her, biology alone would be an absolute cop-out. And she must know that Frank hates children.
We know that Francis did tell her when they first got married he wanted no children. I really liked how Claire was just a calculating and cold as Francis. The scene where she's in the hospital with the dying guard and her reaction to him when he confesses his adoration all this time was jarring. At the same time, it reveals pretty much how Claire is, and she also explains it to the guy as she's doing that thing.
In regards to the baby, I think she wants it out of loneliness. It will be interesting to see how it develops next season.
Cersei: I think she's a little too stereotypically woman-crazy. I really liked her originally, because she could play the big leagues, but her emotional world revolves around men: her ever-disappointed father, the loss of her brother's love, the need to protect her children. And with Jaime essentially gone and King Suck II dead, she loses her shit? I would find a slow descent into madness far more believable, even if I dislike the woman-based madness premise. Even Empress Irene went crazy in the manner of most powerful crazy ancients: trying to maintain her power, killing her lovers and son.
I'm basing my opinions from the show and not the books: I wouldn't say she's woman crazy, just the type of mother that would do ANYTHING for her children. I enjoy despising her. In season 2 during the Blackwater fight, I really liked the scene between her and Sansa where Cersei was getting drunk and revealing more truths instead of being noble and trying to be a good leader. She spoke to Sansa about what would happen if the Keep was taken over and what would happen to them, and how as Queen where she would use her "other" powers.
This just shows me that Cersei is self-aware than the others highborn ladies and knows what she has to offer in regards to surviving.
Lady Eboshi: She is definitely a twist on the woman as nurturer-protector trope. My main issue with her, is the story itself: she's embroiled in an environmental cat-fight with another girl and a man has to come in and break it up. Neither she nor San have the ability to see past their emotional motivations to resolve the problem themselves. By contrast, they have sub-par agency to Ashitaka.
I saw Lady Eboshi as just a capitalist entrepreneur that just sees San and her wolf brothers as getting in the way of her making more money for Iron Town.
In regards to your question about "are they convincing female characters"? For myself, they are just convincing characters that happen to be female.
In regards to your question about "are they convincing female characters"? For myself, they are just convincing characters that happen to be female.
Fair enough -- this ties into my previous post and properly phrases my intended question. I chose these characters because they (and the authors) are IMO worth critique.
I am not sure what "stereotypically woman-crazy" means. Could you help me out?
This just shows me that Cersei is self-aware than the others highborn ladies and knows what she has to offer in regards to surviving.
Would could crazy seem out of place? I think not myself.
The thing I have a problem with is that she thinks she's so clever, but in contrast to the male characters, she's not. None of the female characters of the SOIAF series really hold up to the male counterparts nor female historical precedents. Granted, it's still many factors of ten better than most fiction.
I saw Lady Eboshi as just a capitalist entrepreneur that just sees San and her wolf brothers as getting in the way of her making more money for Iron Town.
But it takes someone completely irrelevant to step in, and show them the light -- a male messiah, essentially. Don't get me wrong, this is one of my favorite Miyazakis. I am merely wary of the rational male - emotional female dichotomy. And messiahs of any flavor.
And was Irene really any different then Viserys Targaryen?
Well, Irene is female. I am comparing fictional females in power to their male counterparts, their role in the plot, and historical/real-life precedents.
The thing I have a problem with is that she thinks she's so clever, but in contrast to the male characters, she's not. None of the female characters of the SOIAF series really hold up to the male counterparts nor female historical precedents. Granted, it's still many factors of ten better than most fiction.
You're right. Her high ego of herself and what she thinks she is capable of leads to her downfall and to the future walk of shame. You could say the same thing about Theon Greyjoy.
Is there a counterpart to Arya? Would it be her brother Bran? I find her to story arc to be most excellent. I have read the spoilers and look forward to seeing what she becomes.
What about Daenerys?
But it takes someone completely irrelevant to step in, and show them the light -- a male messiah, essentially. Don't get me wrong, this is one of my favorite Miyazakis. I am merely wary of the rational male - emotional female dichotomy. And messiahs of any flavor.
I can see where you're coming from, but I never saw it as that. I saw it as nature vs. industry aka San vs. Eboshi, where Ashitaka represents the eventuality of change where both sides come to that realization that things change.
This is true, but Theon is a lesser character among the men. There is no female intellectually comprable Littlefinger or Little Lannister or Spider. Closest is Margery, but her character is under developed. I'm not looking for one-to-one equivalents, that would make for bad story-telling. But the females are represented on average as intellectually inferior to the men. That aside, Arya is my favorite, and one of my only reasons (along with the boys Lannister and Raisin Bran) to continue the series. Dany sucks. d:
I saw it as nature vs. industry aka San vs. Eboshi, where Ashitaka represents the eventuality of change where both sides come to that realization that things change.
I think that's probably what the creators were going for, but what was the creative/symbolic intention behind making San and Eboshi female and Ashitaka male?
Despite that guy's doofiness he does address most of the issues I had with her video. Maybe she should collaborate with this guy to flesh out her argument more. Although a couple of his explanations just come across as writing off the issue.
Genki does put it down as simple laziness, and it very much is. He also notes at the end that this is no real excuse for the sexism, just that it is a different primary factor. However, I think he could have put much more emphasis on that. It is sexist, and it's not okay to be sexist out of laziness or simply playing it safe. However, I also agree that Sarkeesians video focused way too much on past games and that her "past, present" split doesn't really work considering that the video focusing on the Damsel in Distress trope in the current video game environment has yet to come out.
Genki does put it down as simple laziness, and it very much is. He also notes at the end that this is no real excuse for the sexism, just that it is a different primary factor. However, I think he could have put much more emphasis on that. It is sexist, and it's not okay to be sexist out of laziness or simply playing it safe. However, I also agree that Sarkeesians video focused way too much on past games and that her "past, present" split doesn't really work considering that the video focusing on the Damsel in Distress trope in the current video game environment has yet to come out.
I think that part of the problem comes from that this first video is pretty shitty first video for a series. It goes right away to talk about topic without any kind of introductory bit for the series as a whole. There should be a part 0 or whatever that explains what this video series is/will be, what different topics there will be and so on have the basic info there and then the second video could go on about Damsels and them being in Distress.
I see Genki's point that yes, it is indeed laziness that lead to them just reusing these tropes. But somehow I still feel that can be/is sexist. They're not putting forth any effort to not be sexist. It feels like that omission, or lack of effort, is in effect sexist. Maybe not in the same way as consciously putting women down but still in a unconscious/subtle way. In a way where they don't even realize they're being that way.
It's not necessarily laziness it's risk management. Something that every business must do. It's easier for smaller companies, especially in game development, to try new stuff. It's like playing Catan and trying new development paths when you already know one that is guaranteed to be optimum. Yeah you could win with something new, but it will take a certain amount of luck and risk.
Comments
Frankly, I think the video does a good job at laying the foundations. The message was clear: "Creating disempowered female characters, solely for the sake of your male character's story arc, is overused, lazy, and creates negative stereotypes for real women". Regardless of my issues/non-issues with her presentation (specifically the use of "yeah" when something sucks, without actually breaking down why it sucks), I appreciate her dissecting media for the tropes that are so entrenched that we take them for granted.
What makes a good female character? It is not that a female character must be infallible, but authentic. I appreciate Ghibli's female characters, although they, too, can be problematic and formulaic. How much detail is dedicated to explaining female characters' decisions/situations, versus taken for granted? Do male characters inexplicably act more rationally/autonomously/capably/self-interestedly on a regular basis by contrast? Trying to distill the essence of womanhood into a character is inherently problematic, because it assumes the premise that women are different from men, can be distilled, and "menhood" is somehow currently portrayed. Well-written male characters act uniquely, with unique motivations linked not to their gender, but to their personality, priorities, situation, fears, and ambitions (which CAN be linked to gender, just not by default). Now just replace "male" with "female" and put 50% of them in your media.
Let's discuss Claire Underwood in contrast to Cersei Lannister, Esmenet, and Lady Eboshi.
Cersei: I think she's a little too stereotypically woman-crazy. I really liked her originally, because she could play the big leagues, but her emotional world revolves around men: her ever-disappointed father, the loss of her brother's love, the need to protect her children. And with Jaime essentially gone and King Suck II dead, she loses her shit? I would find a slow descent into madness far more believable, even if I dislike the woman-based madness premise. Even Empress Irene went crazy in the manner of most powerful crazy ancients: trying to maintain her power, killing her lovers and son.
Esmenet: It's too bad you haven't read the other books, because I think Esmenet is a classic case of viable female character thrown away for betterment of male character plot. Plus, Bakker uses a supernatural-rape trope, and she follows somewhat of a Cersei Lannister woman-crazy arc.
Lady Eboshi: She is definitely a twist on the woman as nurturer-protector trope. My main issue with her, is the story itself: she's embroiled in an environmental cat-fight with another girl and a man has to come in and break it up. Neither she nor San have the ability to see past their emotional motivations to resolve the problem themselves. By contrast, they have sub-par agency to Ashitaka.
I don't see ANYBODY complaining about a kickstarter project to compile and publish a book of webcomics that already existed. This is no different. She's doing exactly what she said she would in the project. Don't throw money at it if you don't think it's a good project. I didn't fund it because I don't really care about it (also I'm poor), so I'm certainly not going to sit here and bitch about how it's not what I expected. If you paid for it and this is not what you expected, then you need to increase your reading comprehension skills.
I am trying to think if the genders of all characters were reversed and a guy was in that situation and reacted similarly if it would seem out of place? (I am assuming that everyone had read the last book so yeah, spoilers). A guy's sister-lover leaves him, other sister killed his daughter and then his mom, his son is sent away, and he gives up most of his power to the church leaving him all alone. Would could crazy seem out of place? I think not myself.
And was Irene really any different then Viserys Targaryen?
In regards to the baby, I think she wants it out of loneliness. It will be interesting to see how it develops next season. I'm basing my opinions from the show and not the books: I wouldn't say she's woman crazy, just the type of mother that would do ANYTHING for her children. I enjoy despising her. In season 2 during the Blackwater fight, I really liked the scene between her and Sansa where Cersei was getting drunk and revealing more truths instead of being noble and trying to be a good leader. She spoke to Sansa about what would happen if the Keep was taken over and what would happen to them, and how as Queen where she would use her "other" powers.
This just shows me that Cersei is self-aware than the others highborn ladies and knows what she has to offer in regards to surviving. I saw Lady Eboshi as just a capitalist entrepreneur that just sees San and her wolf brothers as getting in the way of her making more money for Iron Town.
In regards to your question about "are they convincing female characters"? For myself, they are just convincing characters that happen to be female.
Is there a counterpart to Arya? Would it be her brother Bran? I find her to story arc to be most excellent. I have read the spoilers and look forward to seeing what she becomes.
What about Daenerys? I can see where you're coming from, but I never saw it as that. I saw it as nature vs. industry aka San vs. Eboshi, where Ashitaka represents the eventuality of change where both sides come to that realization that things change.
I'm not looking for one-to-one equivalents, that would make for bad story-telling. But the females are represented on average as intellectually inferior to the men. That aside, Arya is my favorite, and one of my only reasons (along with the boys Lannister and Raisin Bran) to continue the series. Dany sucks. d: I think that's probably what the creators were going for, but what was the creative/symbolic intention behind making San and Eboshi female and Ashitaka male?
Edit - okay, except for this comment: At least the dude doesn't focus on personal attacks, and he's not an enormous douchebag.
Edit: And her complaints about Legos are total BS, why can't girls have fun with a fire truck or a giant robot?