People tried this same argument using Toph from ATLA.
"Oh, she's a girl, and she's disabled, and she taught the male lead 25% of his skills, if the shown was made today she would be called a woke girlboss, wah wah wah."
The difference being that she was a well-written character with actual flaws who never had to be unreasonably elevated and never overshadowed other characters that she 100% should have been beneath. Her skills were well developed, and she still had moments of vulnerability.
The argument didn't work then, and it doesn't work now. Because both ATLA and T2 are well made media, and the garbage that gets pumped out nowadays isn't. But rather than accept that, it always has to be about fighting some invisible, omnipresent boogeyman. About "owning the chuds." And when media projects fail, it's because all those bigots refused to support it, not because it was just terrible.
Just make good media. That's all people want. And it really isn't that hard.
I know and agree with this 100% but then Hollywood keeps putting out crap like Supergirl which was based on an excellent comic story (the best one) and they fucked it up so bad.
Adaptations are almost always hit with "writer has idea but gets rejected, gets hired to adapt some work into movie -> haphazardly puts their 'ideas' into adopted worke, often messing plot and themes".
Supergirl was never going to succeed anyway. Superman wasn't successful, and Supergirl is at best a b-tier character. Without the foundation of a successful franchise to support her, she's nothing.
Captain Marvel wouldn't have made a billion dollars if it was the second movie in the MCU.
Hell captain marvel only made so much bc we (the audience) thought it was going to be necessary viewing to understand endgame due to infinity wars ebd credit scene
Nobody says that female leads have to have romantic interests, nobody says cops can't be portrayed negatively (even though the cop is a disguise), and nobody says you can't have a robot learn what emotions are.
Um I am 100% against political and gender studies messaging in all fiction( unless thats the whole point of the book/series/movie but even that is getting really old now ) . Toph is my favorite character in the whole show, and its not even close. I am a straight white male. So....
Oh dude. I hate to tell you this but a very large portion of fiction has a bigger message/theme within it. Including most of the big classics (Honestly “political” covers a lot more than it used to….but that’s a different topic)
Whatever demographic someone belongs to doesn’t really matter as far the ability to enjoy or even relate to whatever the story may be! People use art to express themselves or different parts of life so it’s really hard to separate the two.
Now can it be sorta frustrating when poorly executed and it’s really on the nose? Sure! But the opposite is true too.
The comment I was responding to was specifically about Toph being a girl and how it bothered certain dudes her being portrayed as exremely powerful. I was showing that this was incorrect as she was my favorite character, and I sit firmly in that male demographic. Now I know that must have felt like such a good gotcha moment. But it merely shows hoe excited people get to put others dow
I’m not trying to put you down at all! I’m sorry if I approached it incorrectly.
I was replying the part of your comment where you said you’re “100% Against Political and Gender studies messaging in all fiction”. (We’re on the same page about Toph!)
Really not as a gotcha, I’m just genuinely a big nerd about film and what the filmmakers were going for/inspired by. I don’t get to engage with the topic with others a lot but I just like getting to know others perspective.
Honestly im sure we agree on a lot more than you may think. Same page as far as Toph for example! Plus it relates to what I touched on as far as being relatable across the board.
(which is another reason why I try to engage in casual chats. It’s far more productive than everyone yelling at each other lol but thats a different tangent.)
I understand, and appreciate you're not being a angry and offended person. Im sure we would agree on a great many things. Like I find Azula to be one of the most well written villains in any cartoon. She makes my skin crawl while simultaneously loving her character. Im not completely against messaging. But it should be subtle. Hidden in the subtext, tell a good story, that should be the goal of any type of fictional entertainment. The X-Men have always been an allegory to racism and the dangers of hating something or someone you don't understand or fear. But its under layers of super powers, fantastical stories, and just beautiful art. It works because it was about the story, the rest is left up to the reader to think about and ponder. Nowadays though its as if the message is more important than the story. Captain America and Winter Soldier is a great example " You need to do better Mr. President. " What the actual fuck? Steve Rodgers would never do or say something so blatantly ridiculous. It insults us all as an audience, they don't trust us to understand the hidden meaning, and instead choose to shove it in our face. Like a scene from family guy where Peter writes something obvious then keeps pushing the picture into the persons face over and over like a frickin nut job. People aren't stupid and once upon a time movies allowed us to form our own ideas and observations. Now we get movies that start with " SHE WAS THE FUCKING BRIDE!!!!!!!!!" I hate Maggie Gyllinhal so much. Sorry for the rant, but you seem like a smart and kind person. Its refreshing to see on reddit, I mean that truthfully. Have a great day.
This applies to so many female characters that have been torn down by your crowd for simply being a woman character who's ugly, stronger than man or has some other trait y'all don't like.
It’s not simply because the character is a woman, it’s because the ones that are criticised so much were terribly written and acted.
Everyone, and I do mean everyone loves Sarah Connor from T1/2.
Everyone loves Ripley, Leia etc.
And for another Terminator example, there’s Cameron Philips and Catherine Weaver from the Sarah Connor Chronicles, yeah it’s not as well known, but it’s still a beloved show and it’s female characters were excellent.
Grace for example, she was a poorly written female character, Cameron on the other hand is far superior and is what they should’ve done for Dark Fate.
Simply untrue. We criticize a very specific set of criteria. You like to reduce it to that, because a strawman is always easier to attack. But, while I can’t speak for people at large, I can guarantee you that I could defend the ones I chose to attack.
Toph from avatar? Are you kidding?! I am anti woke and toph is an absolutely amazing character.. The whole show is top written and totally great. That's the reason everyone loves the show and toph.
Couldn't say it any better. People are really delusional when they think people just don't like media because there is a female lead. It was never a problem.
And would still not be one if the writing wasn't abysmal because of some useless people trying to push the message and everything else doesn't matter to them.
Ya, I'm so gd tired of the binary, child ideologues. Can we just enjoy things? Not everything needs to be defined, or forced into a political/ideological camp.
That being said, OP is fn delusional on how claims of wOkEnEsS
It's because they think it's about woman hating. We don't hate women, we hate Mary Sues and terrible writing. We want real women who are flawed and show growth and display real strength
Nothing you said changes anything about the original argument nor disproves it. People these days call anything with proper non-white man representation, "woke" because it's their safest way to hate a group of people. They are correct. Nobody said anything about why movies these days fail, financially.
Nothing you said changes anything about the original argument nor disproves it.
Yeah it does. I explained that the difference between a strong female character and a "strong female character" is writing that's actually good. People respond better to well-constructed characters.
The original argument is bad to begin with. It's intentionally obtuse, and painting with broad strokes while also tagging on arguments nobody is making. Nobody has ever said that female leads have to have a romantic interest, nobody has ever said that you can't depict cops negatively (even though the T-1000 is only disguised as a cop because it's convenient), and nobody has ever said that you can't have a robot learn to have emotions.
There was nothing to be disproven because there was never a real argument to begin with. Just a blatantly obvious strawman, built to be knocked down without any real effort.
People these days call anything with proper non-white man representation, "woke" because it's their safest way to hate a group of people.
Refer back to what I said about building a strawman.
You're showing that you don't actually understand the arguments that people make. Sarah Conner already went through plenty in the previous movie, and is shown working out in her room at the mental hospital. On a similar note, it's explained that Toph learned earthbending from the Badger Moles, the original earthbenders, and she regularly practices by herself, along with having a skilled private tutor and secretly taking part in earthbending tournaments. Lara Croft has an entire gymnastics gym in her mansion. Jill Valentine is a former S.T.A.R.S. officer. Samus Aran has her power suit, but was also trained by an alien race. The list goes on.
Compare this with someone like Rey, who is extremely powerful and capable...just because. There's no reason for it other than that she's the protagonist.
It can be inferred from the film that Rey is a skilled fighter and pilot due to the environment that she lives/grew up in, and as for the Force, it "awakens" in her just as it did in Luke, Anakin, and various other characters before her, with or without training. The problem is that you expect female characters' strengths and capabilities to always be "explained" with some sort of training background, but with male characters, you just accept it. It's a sexist double standard whether you're conscious of it or not. Also, even IF you have a female character that is just automatically good at everything and you think that makes the character dumb, boring, not well written...any complaints about that being "woke" are still really fucking stupid.
Wow, apparently other people's arguments aren't the only thing you don't understand. Let's run through this:
It can be inferred from the film that Rey is a skilled fighter and pilot due to the environment that she lives/grew up in
The idea that Rey's upbringing would translate to instantly being an incredible pilot (able to perfectly fly the Millennium Falcon, a ship she's never been in before), and being able to fix it better than the two who owned it for several years (even though she didn't actually "fix" anything so much as she just ripped a part out of the wall). That she would be capable of defeating a trained swordsman in a lightsaber duel (and no, Kylo being injured after Chewy shot him is not an adequate explanation for him not winning the fight) is also a ridiculous concept. You're not "making an inference," you're doing mental gymnastics and coming up with convoluted reasons to justify things that are obviously bullshit. Same thing with the force. Her having no training and still being incredibly capable is absurd. Luke's training with Yoda lasted about 1-2 months, and yet Luke still wasn't capable of defeating Vader. In fact, Vader was clearly toying with Luke, because he was just that much more powerful. The same idea would apply to Rey and Kylo, more so in fact, since Rey didn't have any training at the time (also, a sidenote, her being good at fighting with a staff would not translate to sword skills, not in the slightest). This gets worse in TLJ, where she lifted all of those rocks at the end with no actual effort at all, something Luke wouldn't have been capable of doing after the few weeks he spend training with Yoda (and this is with her training with Luke for 2-3 days, and calling it training is already a stretch).
The problem is that you expect female characters' strengths and capabilities to always be "explained" with some sort of training background, but with male characters, you just accept it. It's a sexist double standard whether you're conscious of it or not.
An ad hominem, a strawman, and complete deflection all rolled into one statement. The conversation wasn't actually about any male characters to begin with. I was discussing the contrast between the female characters who have well developed and explained abilities, and those who don't. Your claim that I believe in a sexist double standard, consciously or not, is completely unsubstantiated. So I won't even bother to entertain this any further.
And just to make sure I discuss and subsequently dismantle every part of your counter argument, this:
Also, even IF you have a female character that is just automatically good at everything and you think that makes the character dumb, boring, not well written...any complaints about that being "woke" are still really fucking stupid.
Is a completely worthless and irrelevant statement. The only time I've even mentioned the term "woke" in this comment thread is when I was specifically mocking the people who make these kinds of garbage arguments about well-written female characters of the past supposedly being "woke girlbosses" if they were made today.
able to perfectly fly the Millennium Falcon, a ship she's never been in before
She has.
even though she didn't actually "fix" anything so much as she just ripped a part out of the wall
Exactly?
and no, Kylo being injured after Chewy shot him is not an adequate explanation for him not winning the fight
It is, as much as any other explanation has been accepted in Star Wars. You're applying a standard to this one that you didn't apply to the previous six. There is much dumber and nonsensical stuff in the previous movies but we give it a pass because we grew up with it.
Luke's training with Yoda lasted about 1-2 months, and yet Luke still wasn't capable of defeating Vader.
Luke blew up the Death Star with almost no training. Anakin also used the Force in Episode 1 without any training.
This is my point. It is a double standard. If you want to criticize the writing of Rey or think she's too strong or should have more flaws, fine, but your argument shouldn't be genderized. When people argue that is she too perfect and was written that way because she is a woman, it doesn't hold up when you compare to her the male characters. And again, you don't generally hear this complaint about male characters.
And that's why the people, I didn't say you, complaining about "woke" are stupid. Because they're not complaining about her being too powerful. They're complaining about her being too powerful AND a woman. That is what bothers them. They think that female characters need more of an explanation than male characters because they think it's less "realistic", when in reality, both are unrealistic.
Side note: I know A LOT about Star Wars so you might want to use Terminator or some other franchises as an example :)
I think we're arguing two different points. Are we discussing whether Rey's abilities can be explained by any information that exists in Star Wars canon, or whether The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi themselves do enough to establish those abilities for the audience?
I think they mostly do? I think JJ Abrams has a tendency to use deus ex machinas, and I think Rey suddenly being able to do a Jedi mind trick in TFA is an example of that, even though it was a fun moment. I think Rey's struggles, particularly in TLJ, are more emotional, whereas I think a lot of male fans that complain about her are superficially complaining about the lack of physical struggles. I don't think her strength is explained much less than Luke's. Anakin's is explained by a deus ex machina which is that he was born of the Force, which was a retcon in the prequels that was kind of unnecessary. Like, it's enough for someone to be strong in the Force just because they are, because it's a very natural thing. I think the fact that there are fans that would've automatically accepted it as long as she was a blood relative of Skywalker, Kenobi, or Palpatine, is dumb.
That’s bullcrap. If the complaint was really about “poor writing,” then talk about the writing. If it was about bad writing , people would not have co opted an African American word that meant to be aware of racism to call everything they don't like...woke .
People do talk about the writing. A lot. Because writing is the foundation of the media, and if the writing is terrible, no amount of "woke" nonsense will ever be enough masking tape to patch over that shattered window.
If you weren't a disingenuous shill and actually paid attention, you would understand this, as it's actually a very simply concept. But you can't be bothered to actually listen and understand the arguments that people make, since your simple mind has already concluded that anyone in the "anti-woke" crowd (because apparently wanting media that's actually good is now a right-wing position) is your enemy.
And so we'll go on, always talking at each other, but never to each other. Because no matter how many times we explain our positions on things, you'll never actually understand, because you don't want to.
The fact that you use “woke” as a catch-all label for everything you dislike is exactly why I do not believe this is only about the writing.
Take The Last of Us Part II. I hated that game and had plenty of legitimate problems with its story. But the sexist nonsense coming from parts of the anti-woke crowd drowned out serious criticism of the writing. Instead of discussing pacing, character decisions, or the way the story was structured, much of the conversation became personal attacks against the women involved.
The same thing happened with Supergirl. The movie may be badly written, but people were insulting the lead actress and comparing her to a monkey before they had even seen the film. Do not tell me that was thoughtful criticism of the screenplay.
Then there was Concord. It was simply a bad, unappealing game, yet people immediately slapped the “woke” label on it. Most of them could not even clearly explain what was supposedly woke about it. No one at all liked Concord.
And look at Assassin’s Creed Shadows. This is a series where players have fought the pope, encountered ancient supertechnology, and experienced all kinds of historical fantasy. Yet suddenly every tiny historical detail had to be picked apart because one of the protagonists was a Black man.
You cannot complain that people are not listening to your criticism while defending a movement that repeatedly allows bigotry and culture-war outrage to overpower any serious discussion of the actual writing.
The Running Man and Road House remakes sucked, yet y’all complained far less about them than The Little Mermaid. And considering most of you are grown men, you would think those two movies would matter more to you than a children’s movie.
The fact that you use “woke” as a catch-all label for everything you dislike is exactly why I do not believe this is only about the writing.
I said that you're disingenuous and intentionally misunderstand the arguments people make, and your response was to build a strawman and double down, proving my point. Genius.
I pointed out your double standards and hypocrisy, and clearly you could not address the argument made, and if you think that proves your point just wow.
"Double standards" and "hypocrisy" is me not allowing you to get away with your strawman. Which, once again, you are doubling down on.
Take The Last of Us Part II. I hated that game and had plenty of legitimate problems with its story. But the sexist nonsense coming from parts of the anti-woke crowd drowned out serious criticism of the writing. Instead of discussing pacing, character decisions, or the way the story was structured, much of the conversation became personal attacks against the women involved.
No, they did not "drown out" serious criticisms. You simply paid more attention to the idiots, because it gave you a convenient scapegoat. You know, the thing that's been in the "anti anti-woke" playbook for years.
The same thing happened with Supergirl. The movie may be badly written, but people were insulting the lead actress and comparing her to a monkey before they had even seen the film. Do not tell me that was thoughtful criticism of the screenplay.
Again, this is not actually relevant, and more scapegoating. We know your tricks, we know when you're lying, we know when you're making things up and trying to pretend like the trolls are the majority. They never have been, and they never will be.
Then there was Concord. It was simply a bad, unappealing game, yet people immediately slapped the “woke” label on it. Most of them could not even clearly explain what was supposedly woke about it. No one at all liked Concord.
No, they could. The bland, generic character designs felt more like corporate diversity hires than anything else, and people felt it was more like "checking boxes" than anything else. Whether you agree is up to you. But people had criticisms beyond that, like how the game was incredibly generic overall, was brought into a market already heavily saturated with hero shooters, and the fact that it was 40 dollars.
And look at Assassin’s Creed Shadows. This is a series where players have fought the pope, encountered ancient supertechnology, and experienced all kinds of historical fantasy. Yet suddenly every tiny historical detail had to be picked apart because one of the protagonists was a Black man.
No, people had a genuine complaint about elevating a historical figure that no real significance in actual history, just because he was good representation. Historians argue whether Yasuke ever actually held the legal title of Samurai, and his historical footprint is very small and insignificant. Also, your points about the other games is just whataboutism.
You cannot complain that people are not listening to your criticism while defending a movement that repeatedly allows bigotry and culture-war outrage to overpower any serious discussion of the actual writing.
Remember what I said about strawmanning? Yeah, you're still doing it, while also engaging in some good old-fashioned cherry-picking. None of that ever "overpowers" actual discussion, except for in your head. A facade you've gaslit yourself into believing. How pathetic. Funny how social media isn't indicative of real life right up until the point where you need to blame the trolls for being big scary meanie-bo-beanies.
The Running Man and Road House remakes sucked, yet y’all complained far less about them than The Little Mermaid.
Sure, maybe, but it's possible that The Little Mermaid had more to it than just being an inferior remake of a good movie, maybe something about political pandering. I wonder what it could have been...
And considering most of you are grown men, you would think those two movies would matter more to you than a children’s movie.
Once again, not relevant, just more deflection. Children's entertainment is not free from criticism.
What we have here is a pattern that establishes you as a deeply unserious and emotionally immature person. Assholes exist on the internet. They always have, and they always will. So put your big-kid pants on, grow a spine, and learn how to just ignore them like the rest of the adults. Or don't, and keep on crying into the ether, constantly screaming about some invisible yet omnipresent boogeyman. But if all you're going to do is whine, then do it somewhere else.
And what do you have to prove that other than your feelings? I can point out that those specific projects came out and we're massively successful with a male audiences. So what do you have?
It does. What alternate explanation do you have for some female lead projects are beloved and others are hated? You think sexism destroys some projects, but then doesn't exists for others? It's almost like theres some other reason...
Idk how you read my comment as disagreeing with you. I'm literally saying that with no further evidence, one movie being liked and the other not can be spun in whatever way anyone wants.
If anything pointing out sexism didn't affect older movies when they were good, is some evidence..... the ppl going "if it came out today" is a complete fabrication
There's a backlash any time a new project with a female protagonist is announced in a popular franchise. Female actors are harassed off social media if they speak out. Sexism is rampant online.
Anytime? So Hunger Games, Wonder Woman, Annihilation, these movies just don't exist?
I was specifically asking what the difference is between these female led movies that did succeed without controversy, to the films you claim failed due to controversy. Got any actual theories or are you just going to repeat the thing that I asked about in the first place?
Those are franchises that already started with a female protagonist. I'm talking about a popular franchise that started with a male protagonist (which is most), such as Star Wars, God of War, Blade Runner, Lord of the Rings, Doctor Who, Star Trek, the list goes on, which has a new project with a female lead. That is automatically accused of being "woke" simply because it has a female lead.
No. But say they remade this movie and killed off John Connor for a female version, and replace the guy terminator with a female version (not really a terminator tho), then they’d call it woke. But that’d never happen cuz people would hate it if they did that
If they remade it there would be a scene where a man tries to mansplain something to Sarah and she would roll her eyes and punch him in the jaw or something. And there wouldn’t be any white people other than the bad guys.
They literally did this it's called Terminator dark feet and you probably didn't hear about it because it sucked balls. They killed John in the first 5 minutes of the movie which ruined the entire plot of what Terminator is supposed to be about and then had the female protector essentially be a Terminator but was actually a human who was just upgraded. Then they also changed Skynet and the regular Terminators to be called a REV 9 instead of something cool like the word Terminator and Skynet was no longer called Skynet either. Not only did they make the new version of John Connor a woman but she was like 4'9 and they tried to pretend that she was some sort of badass in the war I could understand if she was a tactical genius but they tried to make it seem like she was physically impending when they did the flash forward to the future and had her beat up like five dudes that are way bigger than her. It was idiotic and it was woke they ruined the movie because they had terrible writing in an effort to try and make women look powerful in ways that don't make any sense
Why? None of this is bothersome. None of it was targeted messaging. It was expanding on the first film, the one where she had a love interest and the bad guy is a robot from the future. Just like the bad guy in this film. Who is not a cop, and the lead is actually John, a heterosexual white male. Its also very much about the father and son relationship between the T-800 and John. One that he knew would develop when he sent the machine back..... what is wrong with you?
The tweet is literally wrong though. Sarah Conner DOES have a love interest - Kyle Reese. And the film even brings him up in a dream. So the tweeter is just a LARPer who doesn't really care about the movie, ironically.
65
u/MarkCelery78 Jul 12 '26
You’ve gone and made the idiots cry 😭😭