# Women representation in sci-fi films... Any opinions please!



## Star Scream

Hi,
I'm a Media student and im doing critical research on the representation of women in Sci-fi/Fantasy films. I have three focus films which i can use, and i have chosen Aliens, Transformers and Terminator 2. If you have any thoughts, please feel free to comment on how you think women are portrayed in Sci-fi/Fantasy movies, and how you think it affects the audience.

Megan Fox's character Mikaela in Transformers knows more about cars than the men that drive them, and in Aliens the soldiers at first feel threatened by being given orders by Ripley. How does this make you feel as a person?

It would be great to get both male and female responses, but any help would be much appreciated!


----------



## matt-browne-sfw

My comment it that portraying women has changed significantly. Let's just take Star Trek: TOS's Uhura with a minor role on the bridge but still a revolution in 1966. Then came TNG's Troi with a major role as the ship's counselor. Finally VOY with a female captain and her own way of leading the ship (not as a copy of earlier male captains).

More recent sci-fi series feature also more foolhardy fighters like Kara Thrace in BSG.

Often sci-fi reflects society projected 10 - 15 years into the future. But not necessarily more. Therefore Uhura did not captain a starship in a series made in 1966.


----------



## chrispenycate

Indeed - in my youth the role of any female character was to scream, panic, faint and be carried off (preferably in revealing or torn costume) by some marauding BEM – purely decorative. I consider the development positive.
Though I don't know the films in question (though the DVD of "Aliens" is here in the rack, I won't wait to answer until I've watched it) but the trend is obvious; Women and minorities will get roles as heroes, and villains.
And so much the better for the art.


----------



## iansales

Using the Aliens franchise for a thesis on women in science fiction is a bit of cliche these days. Why not pick a less well-known film with a positive female role model, such as *Queen of Blood*?


----------



## Dave

If you are going to stay with _Aliens_, you should spend some time considering the *Vasquez* character as well as *Ripley*.

Hudson: "Have you ever been mistaken for a woman?"
Vasquez: "No, have you?"

But I agree that you have plenty more interesting choices you could make.

How about *Altaira Morbius* in _Forbidden Planet_ for one of those women Chrispenycate mentioned:

Altaira: "Then why don't you kiss me like everybody else does!"

Or, *Leeloo* from _The Fifth Element_

Leeloo: "Leeloo Dallas mul-ti-pass!"

Or, *River Tam* in _Serenity_.


----------



## gully_foyle

Let's not forget Princess Leia. A spy, a rebel, leader of a successful rebellion and (I assume) leader of the post imperial galaxy. Pretty handy with a gun too.


----------



## ironvelvet

I've only seen Terminator II and Aliens but their female leads are a-typical to the general mass of science fiction/fantasy females in being able and not significantly dependant on men. 
I don't think that this sexism is particularly corralled to SF/F. Nobody ever mentions the female characters in Raging Bull or The Godfather or Shane etc. Hitchcock seemed to cast entirely on hair colour and scream ability. I don't mean to imply that any of the actresses in these films lack the ability to act, I'm suggesting that they aren't often asked to do more than support the central theme-which is usually carried by the male characters. 
So does your media project address whether film as a medium is driving or reflecting this essentially demeaning ( and I hope misleading!) portrayal of more than half the worlds population?


----------



## Troo

gully_foyle said:


> Let's not forget Princess Leia. A spy, a rebel, leader of a successful rebellion and (I assume) leader of the post imperial galaxy. Pretty handy with a gun too.



But ultimately a telegraphed message: WOMEN! KNOW YOUR PLACE!

You may think you're 'ard as nuts, but you'll turn to jelly as soon as a buff, self-serving miscreant turns up to treat you like rubbish, and you know it! 

Leia isn't the strong woman character that a lot of men claim she is. She's a supporting character whose main purpose is to get Luke Skywalker into the film. She, like most women in sci-fi and fantasy, is regularly captured, imprisoned, and manhandled, as well as being put into a revealing costume to show off her baps. While again there's an argument that this is due to some big slug wanting her in a bikini so his tongue has unimpeded access to her, in reality a scene in a movie cannot happen if nobody has written, directed, and acted it. And frankly there's not a straight man alive when that was first released who stopped to think "Hmm, Leia's a powerful woman. This is a terrible thing that has been done to her." No. They all went "Phwoar, baps" and promptly fantasized about her during the next wank they had.

She's a relic of the time when most men truly believed that all a strong woman (or a lesbian, for that matter) really needed was a real man to show them the error of their ways. That way women wouldn't have to be men for themselves, they could go back to doing what they were supposed to do (bear children, be motherly, look good, and make dinner). Once Leia hooks up with Han, her personality is subsumed by his, and she becomes arm-decoration. Sure, she gives rousing speeches and medals... With Han at her side as her True Source Of Power.

That is, if that's how you choose to see it


----------



## Urien

The representation of women in scifi, has pretty much followed the general trend in movies over the last fifty years. They started feep and weeble, became stronger and are seeking a more normal level. They still tend to be improbably attractive, but then the men are usually improbably handsome or muscled or both.


----------



## Connavar

I enjoy seeing women in SF like Ripley,Sarah Connor ,River and Inara,Zoey from Firefly.


I dont like the damsel in distress in SF, the cliche feeble female character.   Way too stoneage from my taste.


----------



## Pyan

And let's not forget *Aeryn Sun* in _Farscape _- I know it's TV rather than films, but that's where ST and Firefly started as well.

There's been at least a couple of really high raking women in the genre, as well: *Mele-on Grayza*, again from _Farscape_, and *Servalan* in _Blake's 7 _- no-one could accuse _those_ two of being typical stereotype women.


----------



## Humaren

I believe things have changed a lot over the years in the way that woman are portrayed, and I believe it to be to the positive. Take Elektra, Ultra Violet and Selene from Underworld. All strong and self sufficient, but also able to show a degree of compassion and tenderness without being overly vulnerable. As for overly beautiful, I would agree most times, as in the above three, but let me point out one of my favorites, Col. Samantha Carter of SG1. Brilliant, Attractive (but not overly so) and a formidable leader and Fighter. As for a little skin being shown...well ladies...tell us what you thought of Arnold half naked in Predator. The list of half to fully naked men and women in sci-fi and fantasy may not be quite equal, but it’s not far off. And face it, men and women like their eye candy and sexism has nothing to do with that...That’s just nature.


----------



## Lith

> That is, if that's how you choose to see it


Which I don't.  It sometimes seems like the only way people will accept that a woman _can_ live alone is if she actually _does_ live alone- and that's not something most people want to do.  As for Leia, anyone can see she's ten times the fitter ruler than Han Solo; he's too undisciplined and irresponsible.

Since we're jumping into SF television- I'll nominate Susan Ivanova from Babylon 5.


----------



## Troo

That's just it though. What I was trying to say (a little too subtly perhaps) is that you write the theory that you want to write, and you pick your evidence to support it. So long as your research supports your idea (or, where it detracts from it, you can show it to be something against the "norm"), you're fine. If you want to propose that the representation of women in SF has come along in leaps and bounds since the fifties, there are plenty of examples for you to use. If you want to propose that women are still quintessentially represented as inferior to men, there are plenty of examples for you to use who are _the same characters_ that you could use to "prove" the former theory.

Let's look at Sam Carter. You could argue that she's a strong female lead who is inspiring to women SF fans, or you could argue that the character is just a man being played by a female actress - that for women to become "strong female leads", they have to become men in every way but genitalia.

It all depends on what paper you want to write


----------



## Lith

True 'nuff.  I've seen people argue with all sincerity that the Harry Potter books are completely backward, that JKR is essentially regressive when it comes to gender-roles, and that Ginny (and others) are wasted characters because they became "convenient wombs" for the male characters they end up with.  The only way for Ginny to prove she was a "fully-realized, independent female" would be if she broke up with Harry and ran off to realize her dreams.  It's a curiously forward-backward way of seeing things.

Just noticed something in the OP- the girl in Transformers- I didn't really buy that she was that good a mechanic, but to argue seriously against it would require me to take the movie seriously, and I just can't do that.  The thing about stereotypes is that where you get one, you usually get more (a lot more), and it's difficult to separate the stereotypes from the just plain bad writing, so it isn't fair to pick on one part of it.

And it's interesting that we've generally responded with women role models, but the topic of the thread isn't limited to that (or it doesn't specify that)- what about non-respectable women?  Sure, there's the prostitutes and other low-living women, but what about plain wimps?  Offhand, the only place I've seen outright wimpy women in a long time is anime.


----------



## Troo

I'd class all those damsel-in-distress women as outright wimpy. The ones whose very clear role is simply to fall over, twist their ankle, scream, be menaced by the bad guy / monster, and be rescued by the hero (whom she undoubtedly falls in love with because he's all big and strong).


----------



## Connavar

Troo said:


> That's just it though. What I was trying to say (a little too subtly perhaps) is that you write the theory that you want to write, and you pick your evidence to support it. So long as your research supports your idea (or, where it detracts from it, you can show it to be something against the "norm"), you're fine. If you want to propose that the representation of women in SF has come along in leaps and bounds since the fifties, there are plenty of examples for you to use. If you want to propose that women are still quintessentially represented as inferior to men, there are plenty of examples for you to use who are _the same characters_ that you could use to "prove" the former theory.
> 
> Let's look at Sam Carter. You could argue that she's a strong female lead who is inspiring to women SF fans, or you could argue that the character is just a man being played by a female actress - that for women to become "strong female leads", they have to become men in every way but genitalia.
> 
> It all depends on what paper you want to write




So what a women cant be as smart as Sam with being a man in played by a women.....
Cause i dont see how being a clever scientist who saves them with her mind has become a man in everyway but her genitalia..

Its not like she is a female Rambo or something...

I say all that IS complete BS.  

Have you seen BSG the new show?  I geuss Roslin is a man too cause you know she is in a man role aka the President......


----------



## Troo

Connavar of Rigante said:


> So what a women cant be as smart as Sam with being a man in played by a women.....
> Cause i dont see how being a clever scientist who saves them with her mind has become a man in everyway but her genitalia..
> 
> Its not like she is a female Rambo or something...
> 
> I say all that IS complete BS.
> 
> Have you seen BSG the new show?  I geuss Roslin is a man too cause you know she is in a man role aka the President......



Sorry, perhaps try actually reading my post rather than just picking out the bits you want to and going off on one after your misunderstanding. It could save you further embarrassement.


----------



## Connavar

Troo said:


> Sorry, perhaps try actually reading my post rather than just picking out the bits you want to and going off on one after your misunderstanding. It could save you further embarrassement.




Hehe i see that now.  I didnt actually read your first post but only the second.


But why write the Sam part of the post like you wanted to write her like that.

Thats the confusing part.


----------



## Troo

Connavar of Rigante said:


> Hehe i see that now.  I didnt actually read your first post but only the second.
> 
> 
> But why write the Sam part of the post like you wanted to write her like that.
> 
> Thats the confusing part.



Because it was an example of the skill that a writer can apply to any subject to get the facts to fit whatever point they are choosing to make.

Writers. They're evil. Don't trust 'em


----------



## Lith

> I'd class all those damsel-in-distress women as outright wimpy. The ones whose very clear role is simply to fall over, twist their ankle, scream, be menaced by the bad guy / monster, and be rescued by the hero (whom she undoubtedly falls in love with because he's all big and strong).


Humor me for a bit.  Name a few since Star Wars.  (If they don't at least have names, they don't count.)  

Because unfortunately nothing comes to mind when I actually try to get specific about such women.


----------



## Connavar

Troo said:


> Because it was an example of the skill that a writer can apply to any subject to get the facts to fit whatever point they are choosing to make.
> 
> Writers. They're evil. Don't trust 'em



I trust only the great writers 





Have you seen Stargate Atlantis ?

Its funny cause recent eps i saw a female ship captain written almost exactly like your example of how Sam was written.   She is really a man in a hot female body (of course a female captian of ship must be hot in a SF movie/tv)....


----------



## Troo

Lith said:


> Humor me for a bit.  Name a few since Star Wars.  (If they don't at least have names, they don't count.)
> 
> Because unfortunately nothing comes to mind when I actually try to get specific about such women.



Bollocks, there goes "woman 1"!

How about that dappy bint in the first Indiana Jones film? She was bloody hopeless.


----------



## Troo

Connavar of Rigante said:


> Have you seen Stargate Atlantis ?
> 
> Its funny cause recent eps i saw a female ship captain written almost exactly like your example of how Sam was written.   She is really a man in a hot female body (of course a female captian of ship must be hot in a SF movie/tv)....



No, no, my example of how one could _interpret_ that Sam is written 

I haven't seen recent episodes of Atlantis. I wait until the DVDs come out and buy them, and I'm running behind due to Christmas spending getting in the way.


----------



## Connavar

Troo said:


> No, no, my example of how one could _interpret_ that Sam is written




I understood that 


For a sec i thought you knew one of the writers of SGA and he/she told how they wrote the female character i was talking about


----------



## Troo

Connavar of Rigante said:


> I understood that
> 
> 
> For a sec i thought you knew one of the writers of SGA and he/she told how they wrote the female character i was talking about



Alas no *sniffles*. I could probably get in touch, but I'd ask for a full-blown interview...

Now there's an idea.


----------



## Steve Jordan

Here's what's funny about all this to me: The idea that you-all might be comparing the quality of women characters in SF against what are purely stereotypical "characteristics" generally attributed to women.  Hence, Sam Carter and Kara Thrace are judged, not as women, but as "stand-ins for men," because they don't run around weeping or have builds like Playboy bunnies.  You might as well be judging Boomer negatively because she doesn't act "Asian."

Hint: Don't consider the question in terms of what physical or emotional stereotypes are handy.  _Think of the roles._  Think of the depth of character inherent in female roles, and how that has changed.  Think of it in terms of the "meaty" roles that formerly would only have been given to male actors, and are now available to females.  Picture the female characters that are strong enough to carry their own movie or TV episode, all alone, if they had to.  Those are the real characters... accessories can't handle being front-and-center for an entire movie.

As examples, I'd suggest pretty much every sci-fi romp pre-1980 as the "old" female role, essentially an accessory in the picture.  Many of them helped, some hindered, and some just looked pretty, but overall, they did nothing to advance the story, and had no serious participation in the story beyond being in the frame and helping the leads.  (Even Lt. Uhura never rose above the "accessory" level in the _Star Trek_ TV episodes. Today, many female roles are still essentially "accessory" roles, including Susan Ivanova of _Babylon 5_, Dee on _BSG_, even Aeryn Sun of _Farscape_.)

As examples of the new, "real people" female roles, it's an embarassingly short list.  I'd suggest Ripley in _Alien_ (the first, as opposed to _Aliens_), Kara Thrace and Boomer of _BSG_, Capt. Janeway of _ST:Voyager_, and Major Motoko of _Ghost In The Shell_ (if female robots in Anime count).  Notice that only two of those I listed are from movies... the movie list is even shorter than the TV list.


----------



## Troo

Steve Jordan said:


> Here's what's funny about all this to me: The idea that you-all might be comparing the quality of women characters in SF against what are purely stereotypical "characteristics" generally attributed to women.  Hence, Sam Carter and Kara Thrace are judged, not as women, but as "stand-ins for men," because they don't run around weeping or have builds like Playboy bunnies.  You might as well be judging Boomer negatively because she doesn't act "Asian."



Similarly I am amused that you clearly haven't bothered reading the thread. Doing so would have made you realise that judging these characters is exactly what we _haven't_ been doing - simply clarifying how such characters _could_ be judged, depending on the intention of the paper's author.

I lie. I'm not amused at all, merely disenchanted.


----------



## Steve Jordan

Troo said:


> Similarly I am amused that you clearly haven't bothered reading the thread. Doing so would have made you realise that judging these characters is exactly what we _haven't_ been doing - simply clarifying how such characters _could_ be judged, depending on the intention of the paper's author.



Actually, I have read the thread.  My point is that most of the characters mentioned herein DO suggest peoples' attitudes, even if they are not explicitly giving judgement... and that includes _your_ comments and tone, as well.  Your point, I might add, is well-taken... people see what they want to see.

I was simply trying to focus the thread a bit by factoring out the characters (and there are many, female _and_ male) that are essentially ciphers to the story, leaving the serious female character roles to consider.  The clearest statement I could make would be to point out that there are far more SF female roles now that have transcended the cipher level and become full-fledged character roles.  Today, the trick is first to separate the ciphers from the roles... then examine the roles, keeping the ciphers out of the way.  Because there's no point comparing _BSG_'s Boomer to "Woman 1," is there?


----------



## Connavar

Jordan i can agree with BSG female characters.  I liked how real people like they are.

Boomer any version of her is great.  Khara isnt one dimensional as you might think either.

My fav in BSG is the many versions of Number 6.

Also Boomer isnt asian   They are from alien planets far far away from earth.  



Of course all of this im talking about the new BSG who is the best SF drama by far to grace tv or movies.  They deal with SF elements and social problems.  Just a like great SF book would.


----------



## Steve Jordan

Connavar of Rigante said:


> Khara isnt one dimensional as you might think either.



Not Kara... I "suggested" Dee was "one-dimensional," although you're right... even the simple characters on BSG tend to be more fleshed out than many major female roles on other series.



Connavar of Rigante said:


> Also Boomer isnt asian   They are from alien planets far far away from earth.



All the more reason not to typecast her as one, simply because of a convenient resemblance.


----------



## Connavar

Steve Jordan said:


> Not Kara... I "suggested" Dee was "one-dimensional," although you're right... even the simple characters on BSG tend to be more fleshed out than many major female roles on other series.
> 
> 
> 
> All the more reason not to typecast her as one, simply because of a convenient resemblance.



I agree Dee has been one dimensional.  Unlike other female characters in BSG. She has been shown only as the lover and not on her own.  First Billy and then Apollo.


Who typecast Boomer as Asian ?  You mean the writers?


----------



## n25an

women and scifi...

to be honest with you the only character that I have seen thats been truly fleshed out convincingly since I have been watching scifi is xena...  as far as the books go... its that princess in star wars leia... and to be honest I see nothing wrong with that... the stories just cann't handle too much more...  in other words... a half baked story idea does not lend room to female character development... and most scifi films are rather half baked... good entertainment but half baked... this is why for a long time... people were questioning if science fiction is literature... its just so cliched...


----------



## Lith

Women characters have been "fleshed out" (convincingly or otherwise) very well over the years.


(Sorry, I shall remove my punny self for a while.)


----------



## Steve Jordan

Connavar of Rigante said:


> Who typecast Boomer as Asian ?  You mean the writers?



Nobody did... I was suggesting that typecasting women roles based on female stereotypes makes as much sense as typecasting Boomer as Asian.

@n25an: True, most SF that makes its way to movies and TV tend to be rather lame examples of the genre.  If you want to find really well-developed female characters in SF, you should be digging into the literature, not the movies.

However, movies was the subject here... in fact, we've digressed by discussing so many TV SF shows.  If we limit our discussion to well-developed female characters in SF movies, I'm back to Ripley in _Alien_, Major Motoko in _Ghost in the Shell_, (thought of another) Dr. Aki Ross from _Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within_, and then I'm kinda tapped out.

Edit: In thinking about it further, I have another good one:   Dr. Ellie Arroway from _Contact_.  (I started to add Ivy Walker of MNS's _The Village, _but calling that SF is a stretch.)


----------



## Lith

Lara Croft from Tomb Raider. 

I haven't seen most of the shows or movies mentioned here, so have no basis for comparison for a lot of this stuff. But upon thinking it over, I disagree about Ivanova not being a central or fully realized character. Compare her for a moment with Janeway from Voyager, who is undisputedly the central character of the show- Ivanova beats her all hollow by _any_ comparison. 

Maybe it's not fair to come in here and vent my frustrations with all things Star Trek.

I'll also nominate Cloud Strife from Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children...


----------



## Thadlerian

Here's another point: What SF/F movies/series have you seen, in which a female character's gender does not matter? It seems to me that when people make movies (or write books for that matter) nowadays, they always think they have to _prove_ something with their female characters. For instance, there's always the scene where the boy underestimates the girl's strength/martial prowess, and gets his ass kicked. You can always see that scene when it's coming.

I think one of the main tenets of sexism remains in force: Only women have gender. A human being is, by default, male. Thus, when a character is female, that needs to be _justified_ by making a point out of her gender. Or something like that (am I even making sense now?).

In which movies could you change the female character into a male, without affecting the content or plot?

My point is that a male character can be _anyone_, while a female character needs to conform to one or more stereotypes. Like the damsel in distress, the tomboy insisting on independence, the warrior-princess, the super-skilled mechanic/hacker, and so on. These may be strong characters within their respective stories, but they remain stereotypes. And they're fairly static. A man, on the other hand, can fill _any_ role, and go through _any_ character development.

Troo adressed the point of "female men", which I think is valid, even though it's a matter of diverging feminist theories to determine whether it's good or bad. One of the classic questions is: What is important, the right for a woman to be a man, or for a woman to be a woman? SF movies seem stuck on the former. For how often do we see a female main character who is, in the traditional (bear with me here) sense, _feminine_, but not necessarily _weak_? What movies are capable of not equalling traditional femininity with weakness? I mean, women have endured child-birth and all manner of punishment and oppression though millennia - there must be some trick to it.

I think female role models are important for today's women to abandon self-oppressive mind-sets. But I also think many women find their femininity central to their identity, and would like to see strong role models they can truly identify with. Not everyone can be Cara or Lara, nor do they necessarily want to.

I would also disagree that Major Kusanagi in Ghost in the Shell is a good/strong female character. Sure she's tough, but she always has to undress to use her cloaking device. In some scene in the middle of the movie, there's a man using a cloaking device, and he's allowed to remain dressed, if I recall correctly. There are no doubt some technical points about different cloaking devices, but in the end, it just looks like a good old-fashioned example of exploitation to me. There are numerous similar cases in SF. And I think they send a strong signal to women that, sure, they may be allowed to speak rough and act tough, but, in the end, they're there because of their bodies. Because, if these women were really that strong, why didn't they get a word in deciding their own clothing?


----------



## Steve Jordan

Thadlerian,
I believe my character selection meets your criteria, including the Major.  Regarding the issue with the cloak: I thought the Major stripped down to a bodysuit, and was not naked... but maybe I'm not remembering it clearly.  Anyway, at least she did not go through any issues with having to run around "exposing" herself, but just got the job done... that's the sign of a strong character.

My other selections... Ripley, Aki, Ellie... are all strong roles, but roles that could have been given to a man and played out exactly the same.  And in each case, there is nothing about the characters and their actions that is stereotypically "female."   I'll give the same props to Lara Croft.


----------



## Dave

Steve Jordan said:


> My other selections... Ripley, Aki, Ellie... are all strong roles, but roles that could have been given to a man and played out exactly the same.  And in each case, there is nothing about the characters and their actions that is stereotypically "female."


Ripley - I can't see a man building such a strong relationship with his cat.


----------



## Steve Jordan

Dave said:


> Ripley - I can't see a man building such a strong relationship with his cat.




_Now_ who's being sexist?    You don't honestly think it's beyond a man's ability to love a cat?  As a cat-lover myself, I officially Take Umbrage to that remark!


----------



## Connavar

Thadlerian said:


> Here's another point: What SF/F movies/series have you seen, in which a female character's gender does not matter? It seems to me that when people make movies (or write books for that matter) nowadays, they always think they have to _prove_ something with their female characters. For instance, there's always the scene where the boy underestimates the girl's strength/martial prowess, and gets his ass kicked. You can always see that scene when it's coming.
> 
> I think one of the main tenets of sexism remains in force: Only women have gender. A human being is, by default, male. Thus, when a character is female, that needs to be _justified_ by making a point out of her gender. Or something like that (am I even making sense now?).
> 
> In which movies could you change the female character into a male, without affecting the content or plot?
> 
> My point is that a male character can be _anyone_, while a female character needs to conform to one or more stereotypes. Like the damsel in distress, the tomboy insisting on independence, the warrior-princess, the super-skilled mechanic/hacker, and so on. These may be strong characters within their respective stories, but they remain stereotypes. And they're fairly static. A man, on the other hand, can fill _any_ role, and go through _any_ character development.
> 
> Troo adressed the point of "female men", which I think is valid, even though it's a matter of diverging feminist theories to determine whether it's good or bad. One of the classic questions is: What is important, the right for a woman to be a man, or for a woman to be a woman? SF movies seem stuck on the former. For how often do we see a female main character who is, in the traditional (bear with me here) sense, _feminine_, but not necessarily _weak_? What movies are capable of not equalling traditional femininity with weakness? I mean, women have endured child-birth and all manner of punishment and oppression though millennia - there must be some trick to it.
> 
> I think female role models are important for today's women to abandon self-oppressive mind-sets. But I also think many women find their femininity central to their identity, and would like to see strong role models they can truly identify with. Not everyone can be Cara or Lara, nor do they necessarily want to.
> 
> I would also disagree that Major Kusanagi in Ghost in the Shell is a good/strong female character. Sure she's tough, but she always has to undress to use her cloaking device. In some scene in the middle of the movie, there's a man using a cloaking device, and he's allowed to remain dressed, if I recall correctly. There are no doubt some technical points about different cloaking devices, but in the end, it just looks like a good old-fashioned example of exploitation to me. There are numerous similar cases in SF. And I think they send a strong signal to women that, sure, they may be allowed to speak rough and act tough, but, in the end, they're there because of their bodies. Because, if these women were really that strong, why didn't they get a word in deciding their own clothing?




Boomer,Starbuck,Roslin can all be man and not effect the plot.

Boomer was even a man in the old BSG.  Starbuck is messed up firefighter.
She does have a thing going on with Apollo but its not as important atleast in the first few seasons.  

Boomer is a pilot, she doesnt do much in the story that would change if she was a man.   The old BSG show that.

Roslin the only important to others about her backround  is that she was so far from the position as president before everyone else before her on the list died.  Its not a big deal she is a female since they have female soldiers,pilots etc every in the fleet.


This all cause BSG is not generic SF tv show alà Star Trek where they make big deal of gender.  " Oh a hot alien" and so on....


Samantha Carter in SGI too, i almost think they have made her too much like a man.  She doesnt show much that she is even a female.  Maybe in a mission or two when they are in alien planets who are shocked seeing a female captain.


----------



## Lith

> For how often do we see a female main character who is, in the traditional (bear with me here) sense, feminine, but not necessarily weak?


The best example I can think of is Yuna from Final Fantasy 10 (yes, broadening the category to video games as well). She's undeniably feminine, and even passive, yet the central character of the game that saves the world through persistence and kindess (doesn't that sound gooey!).

And GitS- She runs around Tokyo in her underwear! I don't know how she can be taken at all seriously! Tokyo's not THAT warm! (Presumably though, she has some choice in her outfit, as only a complete idiot wouldn't see sexism in it if she was forced to wear that outfit while the men were in suits. And because she's a high-level cop, we must presume she's not a total idiot- just enough of one to run around in her lingerie for all the world to see.)

The problem becomes the definition of feminism itself. In order for a woman to avoid accusations of being there solely for her body, she has to not show it. But then she's accused of being a man in woman's clothing. There's no winning for losing anymore.

There's the additional problem of stereotyping, and that's regardless of gender. Male characters are also heavily stereotyped, into captains, military, politicians, heavies, nerds, cowboys, etc... I can't think of any that are both nerds and heavies, for example.


----------



## ironvelvet

Sometimes I think that female characters (and children and teenagers) are used in SF films to create a frame of reference for the audience. As in, we would all love to think that our first reaction to aliens and danger etc. would be proactive and intelligent and steadfast but secretly we know that there would be embarassing amounts of paralysis, brain shutting down, screaming panic. So seeing someone on the screen reacting in what we fear would be the 'real' way actually draws us deeper into the fantasy and creates an illusion of reality and believeability. 

Pity it's nearly always the woman who gets to be human and pathetic but men - on screen and elsewhere - are very restricted by the stereotypes they've wished on themselves.


----------



## Star Scream

id just like to butt in and say thanks for all your current responses! and sorry i havent been commenting back but i have been reading them all

I was comparing Aliens with Terminator 2 and did you notice Ripley and Sarah Connor are wearing basically the same clothes? Obviously Camerons doing but that must be a connotation between the two movies. I think Ripley's ability to control the loader at the end of aliens is a symbolic representation of women - and defeats all stereotypes in this one scene. She is heroic, strong, and masculine in some ways.

I also think the conversation between Newt and Ripley in the med lab before the fire alarms go off is important, as they are talking about the alien and how it reproduces.

And in the end Terminator 1 & 2 and Aliens is all about reproducing.
Sarah connor --------> Matriarchy and mother of the saviour of earth (or whats left of it)
Ripley           --------> Matriarchy and "mother" of newt and jonesy the cat

Dont you think Hicks Ripley & Newt make an artificial family at the end of aliens? well before Newt and Hicks dies in Alien3 that is

Oh i scrapped Transformers out of my case study. Even though its a good movie, i decided to change it with Terminator 1, and now my hypothosis is:
How are women represented in the films of James Cameron?

But keep up the replies! thanks guys


----------



## Star Scream

Urgh, another thing that annoyed me

Terminator - The Sarah Connor Chronicles is coming out soon.
I really dont like the look of it though. Firstly, the terminator is female again, so the emphasis will be on her trying to look sexy.

It seems i cant post a link to the poster because i dont have enough posts! But theres a poster on Imdb if you want to have a look, shes hovering in mid-air with half her body destryed in a white background.

Shes mean't to be the Terminator, and yeah she may have half a body but look! Her hair is blowing in the wind, shes got makeup on and above all else she does not look threatening.

I think thats one thing james Cameron did well, he made the female characters strong and hardy - he didnt make them look sexy so the films would expand to a wider audience - because he didn't have to.

The poster is Hollywood'ised', and in my eyes if they cant make a good poster then the programme is going to be pants


----------



## Steve Jordan

Lith said:


> And GitS- She runs around Tokyo in her underwear! I don't know how she can be taken at all seriously! Tokyo's not THAT warm!



There are a number of scenes in which the major is not "running around in her underwear"... it seems to be in the nature of the camoflage gear she (and presumably, the rest of her squad) uses.  In the original manga, men in her squad also use the form-fitting gear, while civilians tend to use the "cloak" style, presumably not as sophisticated or flexible in combat situations.  (No, this was not hinted at in the movie.)

What I think is more significant is that she's _not_ wearing this form-fitting clothing and crying, "_Eek! _ Don't look at me, I'm _naked!_" nor "That's right, boys, get a good look at my naughty bits!"  She's just doing her job, and her attire concerns her not a bit.  

In fact, Batou shows more of a reaction to her attire than she does... odd in itself, considering he knows very well that she's a robot and apparently isn't concerned with her own appearance, but it seems he sees the Major as a woman, not just a robot, so he seems to stand up for her modesty for her.  How's that for gender reversal?  (Maybe the subject of another thread?)



Lith said:


> The problem becomes the definition of feminism itself. In order for a woman to avoid accusations of being there solely for her body, she has to not show it. But then she's accused of being a man in woman's clothing. There's no winning for losing anymore.



As I said, if she treats it as a non-issue, it becomes a non-issue.



Lith said:


> There's the additional problem of stereotyping, and that's regardless of gender. Male characters are also heavily stereotyped, into captains, military, politicians, heavies, nerds, cowboys, etc... I can't think of any that are both nerds and heavies, for example.



Actually, most of James Bond's early uber-villians fit the description of "heavy nerds"...


----------



## Steve Jordan

ironvelvet said:


> Sometimes I think that female characters (and children and teenagers) are used in SF films to create a frame of reference for the audience. As in, we would all love to think that our first reaction to aliens and danger etc. would be proactive and intelligent and steadfast but secretly we know that there would be embarassing amounts of paralysis, brain shutting down, screaming panic. So seeing someone on the screen reacting in what we fear would be the 'real' way actually draws us deeper into the fantasy and creates an illusion of reality and believeability.


 
To be fair, that's common of most movie genres, and their type tends to be dependent on whether they are intended to be a frame of reference for their own type, or a reactive character for another type.  In other words, is the woman there to give other women an impression of themselves in that situation... or is the woman there to give _men_ the impression of women in that situation?  It's a subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless, and it does impact the depiction of the character.



ironvelvet said:


> Pity it's nearly always the woman who gets to be human and pathetic but men - on screen and elsewhere - are very restricted by the stereotypes they've wished on themselves.



Here again, _Alien_ (the first movie) provides a good example of moving beyond those stereotypes.  Not only is Ripley a strong and intelligent leader, cut outside of the usual cloth, but of the men on the Nostromo, one becomes "screw this" argumentative and panicky, one freezes with fear, and one seems to be strong and logical, until you discover that he's just a robot!


----------



## alternicity

I would also disagree that Major Kusanagi in Ghost in the Shell is a good/strong female character. Sure she's tough, but she always has to undress to use her cloaking device. In some scene in the middle of the movie, there's a man using a cloaking device, and he's allowed to remain dressed, if I recall correctly. There are no doubt some technical points about different cloaking devices, but in the end, it just looks like a good old-fashioned example of exploitation to me. There are numerous similar cases in SF. And I think they send a strong signal to women that, sure, they may be allowed to speak rough and act tough, but, in the end, they're there because of their bodies. Because, if these women were really that strong, why didn't they get a word in deciding their own clothing?

--
I remember reading somewhere that Motokos state of dress, and boob size is 'fan service' and very important to the shows ratings.
Also: why should a female character *not* wear revealing clothes? I think you can interpret Kuzenagis dress sense in terms of her either manipulating the men around her, and/or just not needing many clothes as she has a cyborgized body, an temperature and modesty just don't affect her.
But IRL, its fan service.

The tv continuity is far more developed than the movie btw.


----------



## Steve Jordan

alternicity said:


> I remember reading somewhere that Motokos state of dress, and boob size is 'fan service' and very important to the shows ratings.
> Also: why should a female character *not* wear revealing clothes? I think you can interpret Kuzenagis dress sense in terms of her either manipulating the men around her, and/or just not needing many clothes as she has a cyborgized body, an temperature and modesty just don't affect her.
> But IRL, its fan service.



Well, after all, we're talking about movies.  There's a reason why heroines look like Grace Park, and not Judi Dench (with apologies to Dame Judi).  To ignore movies' inherent attributes in this discussion would be unrealistic, and physical beauty also impacts the issue of women representation, in SF and other genres.



alternicity said:


> The tv continuity is far more developed than the movie btw.



As the manga continuity is more developed than the TV continuity.  Always go back to the source!


----------



## alternicity

As the manga continuity is more developed than the TV continuity. Always go back to the source!

hmm. cheers Steve.
That wasn't the impression I was under at all, I thought it was more 'disposable' and 'silly'. Not sure why. I may give the manga a look.


----------



## Dave

The poster for the Game of Harry Potter and tGOF had the photo of Emma Watson improved to enhance her breast size. Warner Brothers did later apologise.

This is a problem with our modern society, which cannot be atributed solely to sci-fi films, or even Anime. People today are obsessed with body image; magazines so regularly airbrush out spots and pimples that they don't even stop to think what they are doing any more. Some people spend more on dieting than on food. If you have enough money, and are in the public eye, you are very strange if you do not have a face-lift, or at the very least a botox. Then you have a tummy tuck, and a breast enlargement, a nose job, (and very soon you look like Michael Jackson or Pete Burns.)

I think we all like to see beautiful people in films, but there is a difference between that, and having a female character who is there for no reason other than to drop her clothes at every opportunity.

In 'Casino Royale' they had a scene on the beach in which Daniel Craig came out of the water in his bathing trunks which was an exact mirror of Ursula Andress in 'Dr No'. They obviously enjoyed the irony of that.


----------



## alternicity

In 'Casino Royale' they had a scene..
Dave

My favourite part of that movie was the dialogue between Vesper and Bond. definately going ot rewatch it, mostly for that.


----------



## LJonesy

matt-browne-sfw said:


> My comment it that portraying women has changed significantly. Let's just take Star Trek: TOS's Uhura with a minor role on the bridge but still a revolution in 1966. Then came TNG's Troi with a major role as the ship's counselor. Finally VOY with a female captain and her own way of leading the ship (not as a copy of earlier male captains).
> 
> More recent sci-fi series feature also more foolhardy fighters like Kara Thrace in BSG.
> 
> Often sci-fi reflects society projected 10 - 15 years into the future. But not necessarily more. Therefore Uhura did not captain a starship in a series made in 1966.



Don't forget how in Battlestar Galactica the new Starbuck is a woman. Starbuck was a man in the earlier series because they felt they couldn't give that role to a woman.


----------



## Steve Jordan

LJonesy said:


> Don't forget how in Battlestar Galactica the new Starbuck is a woman. Starbuck was a man in the earlier series because they felt they couldn't give that role to a woman.



I think that, in the original series, no one even considered seriously that a hotshot pilot could _be_ a woman (remember how amazed and cowed Apollo and Starbuck were when the Pegasus first showed up, and a female pilot showed them both up?).  And if you remember, there weren't a lot of female fighter pilots in the Star Wars movies, old or new.  

The idea of "female warriors" is a relatively new one in real-world military, and SF didn't do a much better job of introducing them to us until fairly recently.


----------



## LJonesy

Steve Jordan said:


> I think that, in the original series, no one even considered seriously that a hotshot pilot could _be_ a woman (remember how amazed and cowed Apollo and Starbuck were when the Pegasus first showed up, and a female pilot showed them both up?).  And if you remember, there weren't a lot of female fighter pilots in the Star Wars movies, old or new.
> 
> The idea of "female warriors" is a relatively new one in real-world military, and SF didn't do a much better job of introducing them to us until fairly recently.



Exactly.

It does fall back on the stereotypes of women being nuturers and men being hunters and gatherers. With our modern day, and that we don't _need_ to live by those means anymore, the stereotype fades, and gives the open window for women to be depicted in every position a man is. I personally don't see why women can't be put in the same roles as men, what's it matter?


----------



## Steve Jordan

LJonesy said:


> Exactly.
> 
> It does fall back on the stereotypes of women being nuturers and men being hunters and gatherers. With our modern day, and that we don't _need_ to live by those means anymore, the stereotype fades, and gives the open window for women to be depicted in every position a man is. I personally don't see why women can't be put in the same roles as men, what's it matter?



True.  As the lines between the sexes and "nurturing versus hunting" fade, we should expect to see more female roles that touch on the hunting, as well as more male roles that touch on the nurturing.

I think U.S. commercials are already showing us a shift in gender roles: Men and women used to be presented as relative equals, with their own (admittedly gender-based) strengths; Now, in most cases (and usually presented in a humorous context, to take the sting out presumably), the woman is presented as the smart one, the serious home manager and expert businessperson, while the man is often depicted as juvenile, dim and inattentive.  The woman saves the day, while the man is usually the one who put it at risk.  The woman thinks her way out of a problem, while the man obliviously watches the game.

So, in terms of U.S. TV commercials, the male has become the "accessory," and the woman is the main character.  And commercials, depending on their popularity, influence programs and how they are presented.

So: How soon before we see an SF version of _Sex and the City_?


----------



## Ursa major

Steve Jordan said:


> Well, after all, we're talking about movies. There's a reason why heroines look like Grace Park, and not Judi Dench (with apologies to Dame Judi).


 

I'm old enough to remember (though fuzzily) the fuss in the newspapers when Dame Judy (as she then wasn't) appeared on stage wearing only three small leaf-shaped pieces of fabric.


----------



## LJonesy

Steve Jordan said:


> True.  As the lines between the sexes and "nurturing versus hunting" fade, we should expect to see more female roles that touch on the hunting, as well as more male roles that touch on the nurturing.
> 
> I think U.S. commercials are already showing us a shift in gender roles: Men and women used to be presented as relative equals, with their own (admittedly gender-based) strengths; Now, in most cases (and usually presented in a humorous context, to take the sting out presumably), the woman is presented as the smart one, the serious home manager and expert businessperson, while the man is often depicted as juvenile, dim and inattentive.  The woman saves the day, while the man is usually the one who put it at risk.  The woman thinks her way out of a problem, while the man obliviously watches the game.
> 
> So, in terms of U.S. TV commercials, the male has become the "accessory," and the woman is the main character.  And commercials, depending on their popularity, influence programs and how they are presented.
> 
> So: How soon before we see an SF version of _Sex and the City_?



That doesn't sound like balance to me, that sounds like an opportunity for things to become increasingly feminist. Whether or not that's going to happen is yet to be seen. At the moment there's a nice level of equality, lets hope it stays that way.

An SF: Sex in the City? Uck. What bugs me about so many Sci-Fi tv shows like the Star Treks and others is how they have to repeatedly put in sexual scenes of some kind. Most of the time it's totally unecessary.


----------



## Lith

Yeah, balance is important.  Somehow in all the hubub about getting girls educated, we're missing the fact that in the US, _less_ men are going to college than even a generation ago.  If the trend continues, what would it mean for our future?


----------



## Montero

I'm just looking forward to the day when it doesn't matter the gender of the person taking a role - it is the personality that dictates the role - and there is no comment as to gender - or rather arising specifically because of gender.  However that is still a while off yet 

We then get into how films reflect the way things really are.  As in some ways, I think there are a big variety of people - and some count being masculine or  feminine as an important part of who they are and others don't.  The problems come when you mix the ones who do and the ones who don't and everyone gets cross because the other one is "breaking the rules".

Incidentally, read several books by Edwin T Hall (I think that was the name, currently wrapped up in a blanket in a cold room and not getting up to go and look along the shelves - couldn't find him on Amazon ) regarding time sense, body language and perceptions of gender in different cultures.  Anyway in one of them he commented that the perception of what is proper to a given gender varies between societies.  His particular example was that he said that in Arabic culture the woman is perceived as more controlled and possibly cold, and the man more uncontrolled and emotional, which is the flip of the way the genders are expected to behave in UK/US culture.

There are other stereotypes/perceptions in our culture/literature/films regarding colour - Katherine Kerr in her Polar City books has a foreword to the effect that unlike most sf where you can assume if the colour isn't mentioned the person is white, in her books you should assume that if the colour isn't mentioned the person is black.  That really struck me when I read it, just hadn't thought of that before.  (OK rapidly rambling off topic here so will stop. )


----------



## Steve Jordan

LJonesy said:


> An SF: Sex in the City? Uck. What bugs me about so many Sci-Fi tv shows like the Star Treks and others is how they have to repeatedly put in sexual scenes of some kind. Most of the time it's totally unecessary.



When I suggested that, I wasn't thinking of the sex part (SF already has _that_)... I was thinking of the fact that the point of view and the activities involved are clearly female, not male.  

Even in a lot of SF that features females, they are still performing traditionally-male roles, ie, fighting, adventuring, etc (the Ripley role).  Rarely are they performing in more gender-female or gender-neutral roles, such as intellectual activities, nurturing, etc.

Re: _Star Trek_, well, blame TV producers for most of the sex involved there... yes, it's totally gratuitous, eye-candy for fanboys.  Fortunately, not all SF TV is as bad in those respects as _Trek_.


----------



## daisybee

In response to the opening post-I have to agree with those that have pointed out that your study will essentially prove or disprove what you feel about the subject. The films chosen are extreme portrayals of woman in non typical roles, warrior women if I must stereotype.

As a woman, I tend to find extreme characters of any sex highly irritating, and Sam in Transformers seems tokenistic, hot girl who know cars, as a foil to a less than obvious male lead. 

Ripley and Sarah C however are both female characters that interest me-their experiences shape them as people, and their actions feel understandable, not just excuses to see attractive women in ripped clothing toting heavy weaponry. Sarah C is a mother trying to protect her child (and the world) so this role is particularly layered.

As you are being specific to a genre, other female characters that don't utterly annoy me are Buffy/Willow (& Faith), as they aren't perfect female role models, but ones who make mistakes, both emotionally and intelligently, just as real people do, and seemed to grow as characters as a result, good or bad. 

As a comparison I find Dark Angel's Max bone crunchingly plastic, simply because the stories don't highlight the character just her gymnastic abilities and tight pants.

As a whole I am not overly outraged by the representation of females in sci fi, in fact I think the genre has been alot more progressive than others in  terms of female leads, and versatility of character.

Captain Janeway rocked and so did Xena, Gabrielle in Xena as also quite cool.
Princess Lea (sp?) didn't offend me, she was tough, looked great and got to get off with Han Solo. Yay for girls! LOL.

You can find sexism in everything and against both sexes if you look for it-at the end of the day, woman have the babies and men don't. This will always shape perceptions of the sexes that don't apply to us all. 

If a character is well written, and rounded then she can be a wimpering wreck or a kick ass fighter-as long as I get where she is coming from it will work.


----------



## LJonesy

Steve Jordan said:


> When I suggested that, I wasn't thinking of the sex part (SF already has _that_)... I was thinking of the fact that the point of view and the activities involved are clearly female, not male.



Ah, i understand and agree with you on this point then.


----------



## alternicity

An SF: Sex in the City?
LJonesy

Sounds to me that Caprica might end up like this. 

What did any of you think of the *other* female character in Transformers, the clever one? imo she was a much better character, I'd much rather the sequel focused on her and her friend, than Sam and babe.

cheers,
Stuart


----------



## Steve Jordan

daisybee said:


> You can find sexism in everything and against both sexes if you look for it-at the end of the day, woman have the babies and men don't. This will always shape perceptions of the sexes that don't apply to us all.



But this still implies females are absolutely defined by those characteristics, and they don't have to be.  Just because a woman _can_ have children, doesn't mean she _has_ to... any more than the fact that a man can sire children means that he has to.  Sarah Connor may have had a child, but Ripley did not... still, that doesn't lessen Ripley as a character, nor as a person. 



daisybee said:


> If a character is well written, and rounded then she can be a wimpering wreck or a kick ass fighter-as long as I get where she is coming from it will work.



Well-said... and the same applies for male characters.


----------



## alternicity

Ripley had a child.
The child died offstage ('Amy' I think) between the first two films, and gave a clue to her later bonding with Newt.

Just noting it


----------



## Steve Jordan

alternicity said:


> Ripley had a child.
> The child died offstage ('Amy' I think) between the first two films, and gave a clue to her later bonding with Newt.
> 
> Just noting it



Whatever you're noting wasn't in the films (I watched _Aliens_ last night, to confirm my memory.  Maybe this was in a novelization?)  There wasn't even space for Ripley to have had a child during the events of _Aliens_, and "between the two films," she was in stasis for 56 years.


----------



## alternicity

It may have been focused on in the novels more, but I think there was a reference to her now dead child in Aliens the movie. We might have seen different version of that movie.

The idea was that she didn't get home (from Alien) in time to catch her daughters life.


----------



## Steve Jordan

alternicity said:


> It may have been focused on in the novels more, but I think there was a reference to her now dead child in Aliens the movie. We might have seen different version of that movie.



I wasn't aware that an extended or "Director's cut" of _Aliens_ was ever released... I just knew it wasn't in the original _Aliens_ movie.  

You'd think they could spare 10 seconds for Ripley to ask someone "Where's Amy?" the second she'd found out how long she'd been gone, and find out she'd died... seems like that could only have been good BG for the character, not something you'd leave on the cutting room floor.

If this is true, alternicity or anybody, please provide a verifiable reference so I can check that out.


----------



## alternicity

Theres definately an extended version available in the UK, it has nifty sentry gun scenes, and some Hadleys Hope(?) stuff before the colonists all get squished.

Amazon.com: Aliens: Special Edition: Video: Sigourney Weaver,Carrie Henn,Michael Biehn,Lance Henriksen,Paul Reiser,Bill Paxton,William Hope,Jenette Goldstein,Al Matthews,Mark Rolston,Ricco Ross,Colette Hiller,Daniel Kash,Cynthia Dale Scott,Tip Tippin

Hope that link works, I've had some problems with links and forums. (edit: it sure looks funny, but its just a google away if its busted)


----------



## j d worthington

There have been several cuts of *Aliens*. The first television broadcast included bits about Ripley's daughter. Essentially, she had had her before the first film, and was supposed to be back twelfth (iirc) birthday. Obviously, that never happened, and when Burke tracked down information about her, he brought what he had to Ripley, who was confronted with a picture of her daughter as an old woman, now deceased. Needless to say, it tore a big hole in her, as she carried that feeling she'd failed her child completely. This, in turn, made things hit her even harder when it looked as if Newt had been taken and killed... and was also an element of why it was even more rough on her performing the autopsy on Newt's body in the third film.

These scenes should not have been cut... they play a very important role in character development, and are extremely poignant; they also foreshadow certain events later on very skillfully. Fortunately, they have been included in at least some of the later versions of the film once more....


----------



## j d worthington

Ah. Here's a little more information about that scene, though it was altered somewhat in the version:

Aliens (1986) - Alternate versions


----------



## Steve Jordan

Good detail, all.  I reiterate that it's a shame Ripley's daughter didn't make the original cut, as it clearly gave extra dimension to Ripley's character... so in that sense, it's probably good it's been restored in later versions.  (I'm also mildly surprised that I've never come across the revised movie, and that all of this is news to me.)

It does pose interesting issues, however, when a movie can be released, then re-edited and re-released, to the extent that major characters undergo serious changes in character and motivation due to the edits.  I'm all for clarifying edits, but not additions that create "revisionist" issues like this.

But anyway, enough of the "revisionist" issues: Child or no, it's very hard to tell how Ripley's behavior toward Newt might have been impacted one way or the other... she behaved like any adult protecting a defenseless child, and Ripley had already proven herself to be enough of a leader to be capable of doing that.  Even better, Ripley didn't insist that a man (well, Bishop was the only one left standing) should go after Newt, while she tiptoed behind him and waited to scoop up the kid and run away. That shows more than a simple maternal instinct at work... those are leader qualities.


----------



## alternicity

That shows more than a simple maternal instinct at work... those are leader qualities.
Steve Jordan

Yeah I reckon Ripley took over after Gorman lost it, pretty much. I think she in the first two Alien films was better than Sarah Conner in the first two Terminators.

kinda OT bit:
I can remember thinking that the novelization was different in tone to the first one, actually. I think the swearing was cut out ? Pretty dim memories these though...

Stuart

ps: 
Do any of you think that Firefly/Lost is a bit babe heavy?


----------



## j d worthington

Steve Jordan said:


> Good detail, all. I reiterate that it's a shame Ripley's daughter didn't make the original cut, as it clearly gave extra dimension to Ripley's character... so in that sense, it's probably good it's been restored in later versions. (I'm also mildly surprised that I've never come across the revised movie, and that all of this is news to me.)
> 
> It does pose interesting issues, however, when a movie can be released, then re-edited and re-released, to the extent that major characters undergo serious changes in character and motivation due to the edits. I'm all for clarifying edits, but not additions that create "revisionist" issues like this.


 
For clarification's sake: I've understood from various sources that it was intended to be in the theatrical release, but the producers felt the movie ran far too long, and cut nearly 20 minutes (they're rather bad about that at times), and Cameron at that time didn't have enough clout to go head-to-head with them on it. Hence, when he had the chance to release a cut the way he'd originally intended it... he did.

Whether this is accurate or not, I'm not entirely sure. The extended cut certainly alters the pacing of the film, but -- IMO -- to the better, in some ways, as it allows it to be both an action film and an intelligent, thoughtful, and emotionally-layered film where nearly all the characters are given more depth. You even have more sympathy for Gorman, and realize that he's just the wrong person for the job -- especially when he's there with Vasquez at the end, where even his act of courage and compassion screws things up for the others....


----------



## Steve Jordan

alternicity said:


> ps:
> Do any of you think that Firefly/Lost is a bit babe heavy?



No.  Both of those programs are primarily adventure, but I don't see that as some sort of male-dominated genre that only has room for a girl or two to fret over (or lead the boys).  Besides, those programs are supposed to represent an expected mix of males and females in their society, which seems pretty natural.  When was the last time you saw a passenger plane, for instance, that was 80-90% male?

_Firefly_ features 3 men and 2 women as crew, 2 men and 2 women as passengers.  Again, a fairly natural mix, and one that does not raise any flags (imagine the comments if it was 8 men and 1 woman... or 3 men and 6 women).


----------



## manephelien

Ripley's character was originally written as a male IIRC. All they did before they started shooting the original script was to put an s in front of every "he" that referred to Ripley. I think I saw this on some documentary that was included with the Alien quadrilogy.


----------



## j d worthington

manephelien said:


> Ripley's character was originally written as a male IIRC. All they did before they started shooting the original script was to put an s in front of every "he" that referred to Ripley. I think I saw this on some documentary that was included with the Alien quadrilogy.


 
I can easily see that with the first film -- at least, fair portions of it, though I would think that Sigourney Weaver's characerization as the film was in production probably brought about some rewrites. But by *Aliens*, I'd say there was much more to it than that....


----------



## Connavar

Who cares really, what made Ripley and Alien series so famous is because she was suppose to be male first as mane said.  I mean what made her original heroine was that they didnt make big deal of her gender.  

I thought that was interesting when i saw the movies first. As kid i was awed by how hardcore,cool she was.  She killed the image of the damsel in distress you are used to seeing in stories like Alien movies .

It might be common today to have a heroine like Ripley but im sure it wasnt in those times before the movies.


----------



## Star Scream

j. d. worthington said:


> But by *Aliens*, I'd say there was much more to it than that....


 
I agree, if Ripley was male he wouldn't have the same relationship with Newt. It wouldnt be unethical and would change the narrative of the story


----------



## Steve Jordan

Star Scream said:


> I agree, if Ripley was male he wouldn't have the same relationship with Newt. It wouldnt be unethical and would change the narrative of the story



What... a man can't be nurturing and protective of someone else's child?  Newt couldn't treat a man like a surrogate father in a stress situation?  And I don't understand your ethics statement... are you saying there was something unethical about Ripley's relationship with Newt?

I fail to see why a man couldn't have been as effective in that role as a woman... which, in fact, is the point of this sub-thread, that Ripley's character could be played by a man or a woman, sex isn't an issue (and doesn't become one until the 3rd movie, when her role as mother comes into play).

I realize there's a lot of "political correctness" today (in the U.S., anyway) that prevents an adult male to get close to a little girl without someone's alarm bells going off.  Nevertheless, a male Ripley would still be capable of being a protective father-figure in _Aliens_.  He just would not have the same gender-bending impact as an action hero that a female Ripley would.


----------



## j d worthington

Steve Jordan said:


> What... a man can't be nurturing and protective of someone else's child? Newt couldn't treat a man like a surrogate father in a stress situation? And I don't understand your ethics statement... are you saying there was something unethical about Ripley's relationship with Newt?
> 
> I fail to see why a man couldn't have been as effective in that role as a woman... which, in fact, is the point of this sub-thread, that Ripley's character could be played by a man or a woman, sex isn't an issue (and doesn't become one until the 3rd movie, when her role as mother comes into play).
> 
> I realize there's a lot of "political correctness" today (in the U.S., anyway) that prevents an adult male to get close to a little girl without someone's alarm bells going off. Nevertheless, a male Ripley would still be capable of being a protective father-figure in _Aliens_. He just would not have the same gender-bending impact as an action hero that a female Ripley would.


 
While I agree that you could have a father-figure Ripley who was caring and nurturing in that film, the dynamics would have been completely different. Even at such an age, there's enough distinctions to where adult and children react differently in an enormous range of ways, depending on the sex of each. So I have to disagree that it was only in the third film that this aspect of Ripley's being a woman played an important part in the relationship.

Incidentally, *Aliens* was the first film my daughter took an interest in, when she could barely talk. She loved that film from that point on. I was a bit troubled (due to the violence of the film), but I asked a friend who was a child psychologist about that one, and her response was a grin and "strong female characters; great role models" response....


----------



## Steve Jordan

j. d. worthington said:


> While I agree that you could have a father-figure Ripley who was caring and nurturing in that film, the dynamics would have been completely different. Even at such an age, there's enough distinctions to where adult and children react differently in an enormous range of ways, depending on the sex of each. So I have to disagree that it was only in the third film that this aspect of Ripley's being a woman played an important part in the relationship.



So... swap out Newt with her brother!   Seriously, I agree the dynamics would have been different, but I don't think it would have adversely impacted the story, or the movie, IMO.  It just would have been different.

We've been talking about Ripley an awful lot.  (Not that I'm trying to change the subject, but...)  Comments on any of the other women mentioned in this thread?


----------



## alternicity

> Do any of you think that Firefly/Lost is a bit babe heavy?
> 
> No. Both of those programs are primarily adventure, but I don't see that as some sort of male-dominated genre that only has room for a girl or two to fret over (or lead the boys).



Sorry, I wasn't being clear enough. I meant 'babe haevy' as in they are all gorgeous. A *gorgeous* female engineer, as well as hooker, second in command and mystery girl was one too many for me.
By comparison, I wouldn't say that Starbuck or Cain are babes in BSG, but if they had been, then that too would have been too many, in some sense.


----------



## lathark

Is the question about the woman being represented in sci-fi films, or about strong roles for women in sci-fi or any other film. I personally enjoy watching strong women, being given strong roles, against the same impossible adversaries as men would/should/could be up against.

Barbarella, pre-Ripley era (whom I adore as a character), certainly had an impact on me. So has the roles changed? OR, have they moved on with the times? Should there be more, stronger roles for women, and maybe in the years to come, having inspired the entire generation to work out and develop huge physiques, maybe all women start to look like Arnold, and real men are running for the hills.


----------



## Quokka

I kind of skimmed the last few pages so sorry if this going over old ground.

I love the first two Alien films and the character Ripley but Ripley was fairly strong in Alien wasn't she? Ok she was more of a survivor and her experiences lead to her being stronger (not just physically) in the sequels but she was introduced as a strong, capable crew member from day one. Which is a real plus and certainly a bit of a rarity.  

The interesting thing with Sarah Connor is she starts out as the damsal in distress, we see glimpses of an inner strength but for most of the movie if Kyle wasn't there she'd be dead. Sarah's conversion (and Linda Hamilton's portrayal of it) is a huge part of T2's success imo. The T2 Sarah Connor could likely have taken down an Arnie Terminator without help. It was only because they upped the baddie that Arnie was needed, I know that's not completely unusual for sequels but I think it's still an indication of real character development.

As with Ripley in Aliens the 'protective mother' angle is used, because of course mothers can be not only strong but dangerous, young and single not so much  (Edit:Trinity from Matrix? always exceptions... although Trinity still has to be saved... ok, that's about to start going around in circles) but either way it's a nice growth of the Sarah Connor character that's well justified by her experiences.

I'm not even going to comment on Sam from Transformers but I am going to contradict myself a little further by adding that I thought Leeloo from The Fith Element kept her femininity despite her superpowers, could the role have been played as a male, probably but I think Leeloo was depicted as distinctly female and I don't just mean the outfit. Buffy was raised at some point and in some ways Leeloo is almost reminiscent of her, though much less developed with only 90 minutes to work with.

Another interesting SF from gender roles is Jurassic Park, how often does the male scientist find and care for the kids whilst the female scientist braves the raptors and saves the day? Again I didn't think Laura Dern's character lost her femininity or believability in order to be 'tough' enough to fill the role.

Sure the strong female character is a bit of a stereotype, an update of the Amazons mythology? But it could be worse, I was trying to think of the last time I saw a female scientist that wasn't stunning and I think I had to go back as far as The Andromeda Strain.


----------



## Steve Jordan

alternicity said:


> Sorry, I wasn't being clear enough. I meant 'babe haevy' as in they are all gorgeous. A *gorgeous* female engineer, as well as hooker, second in command and mystery girl was one too many for me.
> By comparison, I wouldn't say that Starbuck or Cain are babes in BSG, but if they had been, then that too would have been too many, in some sense.



Good point... you don't see too many women in SF films who aren't drop-dead gorgeous.  But then, that's something you can say about films in general... it seems the only women who can be less than beautiful must be someone's mom, or the old waitress at the diner.  Same thing goes for males, really, though I'd say there's a lot more leeway given to males who aren't the leading men to be less than handsome.

This brings us back to the realities of movie-making, in that it does not reflect real people, and especially women, in the looks department... and probably never will.  They're in business to sell, and supermodels sell better than slobs.



Quokka said:


> Another interesting SF from gender roles is Jurassic Park, how often does the male scientist find and care for the kids whilst the female scientist braves the raptors and saves the day? Again I didn't think Laura Dern's character lost her femininity or believability in order to be 'tough' enough to fill the role.



Yeah, I'd forgotten about Ellie Sattler... brave enough to go out to bring back Grant and the kids, then go out and get the island's power back on, not to mention locking a raptor in a shed (she thought).  Yes, she was strong, but still feminine (I love the way she limps back from the shed, sees Alan, hobbles up to him and literally jumps into his arms, she's so glad to see him!).


----------



## daisybee

Steve Jordan said:


> But this still implies females are absolutely defined by those characteristics, and they don't have to be. Just because a woman _can_ have children, doesn't mean she _has_ to... any more than the fact that a man can sire children means that he has to. Sarah Connor may have had a child, but Ripley did not... still, that doesn't lessen Ripley as a character, nor as a person.


 
I did say that those perceptions aren't shared by us all-after all, you can get a useless mother and a great dad, and a million variations of people in between-I'm as idealistic as the next person, but the truth is, woman getting pregnant is the most turned to plot device in the universe. 
Although Terminator kind of gets away with it, seen as its the whole point!! LOL.

Even woman that don't want children are viewed with raised eyebrows now, oh how original, hard ass doesn't want a kid, or to be defined by her gender, yawn yawn. So it does shape perceptions regardless, because at some point the topic is alluded to. Like clarification is needed.


----------



## Rodders

With the exception of Ellen Ripley and possibly Kara Thrace, all of the other female characters are still quite stereotypical. Doesn't their character end up falling in love with or needing the man to complete their transition or needing rescuing? I still don't think that they're too far removed from the black and white movies. Only their prominance has improved. 

Sarah Connor needed the Terminiator (a man). Leia and Han, Leeloo and Corbin Dallas etc. There are still the damsels in distress. Even River Tam, though powerful, is damaged and needs looking after.


----------



## Steve Jordan

Rodders said:


> With the exception of Ellen Ripley and possibly Kara Thrace, all of the other female characters are still quite stereotypical. Doesn't their character end up falling in love with or needing the man to complete their transition or needing rescuing? I still don't think that they're too far removed from the black and white movies. Only their prominance has improved.
> 
> Sarah Connor needed the Terminiator (a man). Leia and Han, Leeloo and Corbin Dallas etc. There are still the damsels in distress. Even River Tam, though powerful, is damaged and needs looking after.



To your list of "exception" characters who did not need men to "complete" them, I will add Kathryn Janeway, M (if you can still consider James Bond SF), and Juliet Burke (Lost).


----------



## The Judge

Rodders said:


> With the exception of Ellen Ripley and possibly Kara Thrace, all of the other female characters are still quite stereotypical. Doesn't their character end up falling in love with or needing the man to complete their transition or needing rescuing? I still don't think that they're too far removed from the black and white movies. Only their prominance has improved.



But isn't this simply a reflection of real life?  Most women do fall in love, usually with a man.  Most people fall in love at some point in their lives.  Most people need another person to help them in their transition from one stage of life to another, whether it's a partner, family member, work colleague or whoever.  

And yes, there's been an improvement.  I recall an original Star Trek episode where there is a woman who had wanted to be a starship captain but had been turned down.  She swaps bodies with Kirk in the episode, allowing the woman to act in a masculine way and Bill Shatner to be indecisive and generally 'girly'.  Now my memory may be at fault, but how I recall it, is that she had been turned down in the past not because of any flaw in her character, but purely because she was female and it was Starfleet policy not to allow female captains.  As I say, this might be mis-remembered, but in a sense that is irrelevant - the message I received from that episode, and which has stuck with me all these years, is that regardless of ability a woman was not allowed access to a certain important job thanks to her sex.  I cannot believe any adolescent girl is getting that same message nowadays.  (No doubt there are plenty of others, just as objectionable - but that isn't one of them.)

By all means inveigh against the love interest whose only function is to show off the male lead (especially when she's just out of school and he's ready to be fitted for a zimmer frame), but remember that people get the literature and entertainment they deserve.  If movies that demeaned or belittled women took no money, they wouldn't be made.  

J


----------



## Precision Grace

Well, men in films also tend to have a female interest that completes them; either that or they are wallowing in self-pity following an earlier tragic demise of said female interest.

The point isn't whether there is a man there or a child, the point is that the characteristics that make women what they are, be it positive or negative are not shown in exploitative or derogatory way. Ditto for male characters.

Marry Poppins, on the other hand, doesn't need a man and is stronger and more capable than anyone else. Does she qualify as Sci-Fi?


----------



## Dave

Precision Grace said:


> Mary Poppins, on the other hand, doesn't need a man...


What about Bert, the Chim, Chim, Cheroo, Chimney Sweep with the worst cocken ey accent ever filmed?


----------



## dustinzgirl

Rodders said:


> With the exception of Ellen Ripley and possibly Kara Thrace, all of the other female characters are still quite stereotypical. Doesn't their character end up falling in love with or needing the man to complete their transition or needing rescuing? I still don't think that they're too far removed from the black and white movies. Only their prominance has improved.
> 
> Sarah Connor needed the Terminiator (a man). Leia and Han, Leeloo and Corbin Dallas etc. There are still the damsels in distress. Even River Tam, though powerful, is damaged and needs looking after.





Steve Jordan said:


> To your list of "exception" characters who did not need men to "complete" them, I will add Kathryn Janeway, M (if you can still consider James Bond SF), and Juliet Burke (Lost).



There's a difference between falling in love and needing a man. A big, big difference.

All of those women were in love at one point or another in the story line, or at least had a love interest.


----------



## kythe

Dave said:


> What about Bert, the Chim, Chim, Cheroo, Chimney Sweep with the worst cocken ey accent ever filmed?


 
Mary Poppins didn't "need" him.  They complimented each other well, but she was quite independent and was the dominent person in their relationship.  She was a caregiver for children so she did have a traditional role.  Of course, that is because the children's mother was out fighting for womens suffrage!

So no one has mentioned X-men yet?  They had a pretty decent mix of male and female characters, nothing like the typical superhero male always rescuing his damsel in distress (like Superman and Spiderman).  The women of x-men stood on their own.  Jean Gray was a more central character than Scott and was the stronger of the two in their relationship.  Storm stood pretty well on her own and was a good leader.


----------



## Rodders

Guys, i'm sorry. I didn't mean to cause any offence, but the question did say about female representation in films. I'm not a sexist pig. I am another sort of pig. LOL. 

Anyway, isn't it said that there are only 7 original stories? If this is true, then surely there must be a finite number of roles? Of course women are going to be stereotyped, as are the men. Of course there are stronger female roles, but the stereotype remains the same.  

Apologies.


----------



## ManTimeForgot

Not exactly seven original stories... more like themes.  Google Answers: The Seven Main Plots in All of Literature = ???


At their core stories really only have one of three basic premises: save the world (or something smaller if the scale isn't that epic), conquer the world (ibid), or destroy the world (ibid).  The reason why I say "world" is because in order to hold a reader's interest whatever is "at stake" has to be seen as valuable to the reader.  Just think "save the cheerleader, save the world" you get what I am talking about.  What is at stake might not be the world per day, but if Holmes' mystery goes unsolved the "world is over" for the mystery genre reader... (substitute whatever major premise/genre of your choice).


But the number of roles that can be applied to a given premise within the framework of any of the 7 "basic plot points" is virtually unlimited.  How many different roles are there in real life?  The answer is too many to count.  So the question of how many roles can a protagonist potentially play is answered the same way.  Far too many to count.



And my two cents on the major topic: I like my female leads like I like all my heros.  If they aren't strong willed, determined, and read to make things happen, then I quickly lose interest.  That's more of a general guideline for me than 100% dogmatic requirement though.  I enjoy purely cerebral shows often as well, and a nebbish but extremely cunning/intelligent main character can be compelling as well.

MTF


----------



## The Judge

Rodders said:


> Guys, i'm sorry. I didn't mean to cause any offence, but the question did say about female representation in films.
> 
> Apologies.



Don't fret - I don't think anyone would have taken offence at what you said.  Certainly I didn't.  And I didn't read your comment as being at all sexist.  In fact, quite the reverse - you seemed annoyed that there had been no development in the portrayal of women in films.  So you get your honorary women's lib badge and extra brownie points!

J


----------



## Rodders

The Judge said:


> Don't fret - I don't think anyone would have taken offence at what you said. Certainly I didn't. And I didn't read your comment as being at all sexist. In fact, quite the reverse - you seemed annoyed that there had been no development in the portrayal of women in films. So you get your honorary women's lib badge and extra brownie points!
> 
> J


 
Judged and found innocent. Fantastic!!!!


----------



## Connavar

Kara Thrace i mostly like because she is like what only men can do in film,tv.  She was a prominent character in famous series and she acted a man.  She was a female player,she was selfish,  etc   She did everything that only male heroes are "allowed" in film,tv.

She acted very human and not some too good love interest for the male character Apollo.   She wasnt machine like Ripley either.  

In more balanced world beteween men and women Kara wouldnt be so rare the medium.  We would have more of her and less female characters that only fall in love,marry the hero.   Heck isnt ironic the old Starbuck was male.   No wonder with the personlity,the actions of the female version.


----------



## Esioul

I don't understand why they had to make Starbuck female.


----------



## Connavar

Esioul said:


> I don't understand why they had to make Starbuck female.



I dont see how thats a problem.   Its one of the reasons BSG is one of the best shows on tv for many years.  Starbuck is an important character.  Really all the other characters like that except the president,Six is male anyway.

I understand the old fans but the new series is another beast.


----------



## Boneman

Has anyone mentioned 'Barbarella' yet?


----------



## Marlon

In the original ST pilot with Captain Pike, number one was a woman -- and she even got to wear something a little more suitable for strange new world exploration than a mini skirt.

Will whatshisface's girlfriend/wife in Independence Day was pretty hip.  She got herself, her kid, her dog, the president's wife and a whole bunch of others out of Dodge and to safety when it counted.  & while Will came to get her in a helicopter, she didn't need anyone to drive the county truck for her.


----------

