We're Losing Our Strong Female Characters to Trinity Syndrome...

[AniNate]

MRAs basically deserve a giant LOL and nothing else.

 

But you don't think it would get a similar reaction from females if the genders were reversed? 

Edited July 7, 2014 by tribefan695

[Spidey Freak]

A good juxtaposition of traditional vs strong female characters is Black Widow.  In IM2 she was little more than a blow up doll who could fight; really only there for male titilation.  In CATWS, she was a full fledged person with talents, likes, fears and choices.  The fact that she was female and "hot" is not at all brought up as a point, let alone exploited. 

 

Great observation, Ruthie. You perfectly identified why I was meh over Scarlett in IM2 but was then totally taken by surprise in TA. Subconsciously I blamed the actress, but it is obvious that it was the writing and direction of the character that made all the difference in the world. ScarJo is a competent actress who is as good as her director and script are.

[Spidey Freak]

What gets me is that there don't seem to be enough clear SOLUTIONS for these problems. What would the perfect hypothetical of a cast with a full range of strong, well-rounded, non-stereotypical, non-token female/minority/etc. characters look like? 

 

The Kill Bill volumes are pretty great examples. When it comes to minority characters who, you know, actually DO shit and are greater in number than the token digit, the Fast and Furious series are good examples too. 

Edited July 8, 2014 by Spidey Freak

[Phil in the Blank]

MRAs basically deserve a giant LOL and nothing else.

 

[BadAtGender]

But you don't think it would get a similar reaction from females if the genders were reversed? 

 

It's not an equivalent comparison. The presentation of male and female characters, and the tropes that apply to them, are not balanced and switching the gender of a character will necessarily change the critique and how that critique should be regarded.

[AniNate]

It's not an equivalent comparison. The presentation of male and female characters, and the tropes that apply to them, are not balanced and switching the gender of a character will necessarily change the critique and how that critique should be regarded.

 

So, basically, men getting killed off to advance a woman's story is more acceptable because it doesn't happen as often? 

 

It just seems like there is no "right" way to portray a female supporting character. There's always something about them that is either unacceptably stereotypical or demeaning to the gender.

[rukaio101]

So, basically, men getting killed off to advance a woman's story is more acceptable because it doesn't happen as often? 

Yes. Someone getting killed off to advance another character's story is a time long story device and can still be used very well. The problem comes from it disproportionately happening to females (or them getting raped/beaten/whatever) in modern storytelling as whole, often without any other strong female to replace her and reinforces the stereotype that women are just victims. 

 

As a comparison, it's okay for a black guy to play a jerkass in a film every once in a while. But if, in the vast majority of films, black guys only or mainly played jerkasses, that's a problem.

 

It just seems like there is no "right" way to portray a female supporting character. There's always something about them that is either unacceptably stereotypical or demeaning to the gender.

For some people, yeah probably. Just like there's probably no film out there that at least one person doesn't like. But that doesn't mean there's not a problem and that we shouldn't try to fix it.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Rukaio Alter

[Spidey Freak]

It just seems like there is no "right" way to portray a female supporting character. There's always something about them that is either unacceptably stereotypical or demeaning to the gender.

I think Dory is the best example of a female supporting character to a male lead or leads done right.

[The Panda]

Again, it's simply a female supporting character is done right if it's a good character, there is no check list.

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

Again, it's simply a female supporting character is done right if it's a good character, there is no check list.

There's never a checklist, but I think that saying "a female character is done right if it's a good character," is a little reductive. Part of the problem is that so many writers think that the strong female stereotype is a good character. What articles like this do is they get us to question what a good character really is. Even though the checklist might seem rigid, it starts a discussion on what makes a character interesting. The other approach, the one that says "a good female supporting character is a good supporting character," stops us from really having any substantial discussion, even though it's technically correct. 

[Murgatroyd]

I think I've found a useful way to look at this. A famous bit of writing advice (from Kurt Vonnegut, IIRC) is that 'every character should want something, even if it's only a glass of water.' So, when considering a female character, ask yourself, what does she want?

 

It gets tiring seeing Shallow Love Interests who want to marry The Hero, and Damsels In Distress who want to be rescued by The Hero, and women who want to support The Hero, and women who want to help The Hero realize his true strength/destiny/whatever, and so on. We need more female characters whose driving desire does not revolve around The Hero.

[Spidey Freak]

I think I've found a useful way to look at this. A famous bit of writing advice (from Kurt Vonnegut, IIRC) is that 'every character should want something, even if it's only a glass of water.' So, when considering a female character, ask yourself, what does she want?

 

It gets tiring seeing Shallow Love Interests who want to marry The Hero, and Damsels In Distress who want to be rescued by The Hero, and women who want to support The Hero, and women who want to help The Hero realize his true strength/destiny/whatever, and so on. We need more female characters whose driving desire does not revolve around The Hero.

 

Even if they want to help The Hero, they could be categorized as "good" if they had their own distinct arc that isn't half-assed like Wyldstyle's in Lego. Being show-stealers like Dory helps too. 

[Blankments]

That article totally gets Wyldstyle wrong

 

 

As for the actual subject... I honestly don't know

[Blankments]

Also, Laurence Fishburne's on Hannibal?