meganbmoore | (no subject)

Someone please rescue me from exploring The Hathor Legacy's archives. I am currently trapped in this post (regarding whether or not female audiences are "listened to") and the links in it to other articles.

A couple quotes:

When women dropped over half a billion to see Titanic, frequently citing Kate Winslet and/or her character as their reason (and the special effects in more than a few cases), it was dismissed as a fluke. The biggest gross-earner of all time, and we’re not allowed to learn anything from its success because it was just a fluke. And why was it a fluke? Uh, something about when it was released, and what else was out, and er, stuff. Conventional wisdom. Don’t question it.

On the DVD extras for Firefly, a Fox sci-fi series that was troubled from the get-go and cancelled after 15 episodes, Chris Buchanan (president of Mutant Enemy, creator Joss Whedon’s production company) said:

“The initial results - they made the network nervous. The men didn’t respond as strongly as they thought they would, and the women responded more strongly.”

But you know, back to Titanic for a moment. Err...when it came out I was one of the masses of teenaged girls who were "ZOMG! Best romance ever!" (leave me alone!) And then I got over it and went into the seemingly-required "that movie and Leonardo DiCaprio suck and are overrated!" phase...and then I got over those. Now I like it for Rose. And the special effects.

BUT! a spoilery question!

Was Jack fridged for Rose? Ultimately, his main purpose is to show her that she can do what she wants: break out of her sheltered little world and live her own life by her own merits. That accomplished, he dies, and Rose moves on to a more fulfilling life, and other men.

ETA: This and a comment remind me of a thought I've had a few times but never put enormous thought into. Does it seem to anyone else that attention to women and movies comes in waves? Like, you have the 30s-50s, where parts of various movies-if not entire movies-seem to be specifically geared towards women, not just in terms of romance. And then it's like studios went "Hey! All women need is to have a woman there. We'll just tuck her into the background and focus on the guys. Who are more interesting anyway. All women want is a romance anyway." And then you get to Sci Fi and fantasy getting popular, and somebody notices "Hey! I think some women like this stuff!" and we get Heroines. And then studios got deja vu and went "Hey! All women need is to have a woman there. We'll just tuck her into the background and focus on the guys. Who are more interesting anyway. All women want is a romance anyway." again.

Leia: Politician, rebel, soldier, leader. Dictates her own life and fate. Says "stuff you" when men object.
Padme: Politician, leader, sometime-fighter. Starts awesome, ultimately reduced to a source of Anakin's angst.

Both spawned from the same brain, just a couple decades apart.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

How do you think Leia was undermined?

I wouldn't say that that was undermining her character at all. She spent that whole sequence being creeped out and defiant and telling him to go get his cheap titillation somewhere else. And then by the end she's strangled him with her own chain in a classic display of badassery.

And really, put it in context: no character was doing awesome at that point in the movie. The droids were basically abused slaves. Han is stuck in a watery cell, blind, and feeble from hibernation sickness. Chewie and Luke are only slightly better off: they're in the same cell but with no hibernation sickness. The only character in any sort of advantageous position was Lando, who was undercover.

Was Leia's slave outfit a bit of obvious fanservice? Yes, clearly. But did it undermine her character? No, I don't think so.

So you don't think turning her into fanservice undermines her at all.

In and of itself? No. Fanservice very often is accompanied by undermining of the character, but it really depends on the context and content of the fanservice. And in this case I wouldn't say it does. it clearly exposes that Lucas was thinking with his hindbrain at this point, but...

Even I have never more than rolled my eyes at that part.

The thing is that, even though Leia wasn't done perfectly, there was obviously a conscious effort to have her be independent and her own character. About half as much effort was put into Padme in the first movie, then virtually none once Anakin was grown up. They tried with one, and barely bothered with the other, to the point where they literally made her nothing more than a point for angst. They even removed a chunk of her role, because she originally lived long enough to make at least a little impact on Leia's life. (Which is a pity, as Padme started with such potential.)

ETA for important typo.

Oh sure. I'll give credit where credit is due, I just think people often give too much credit.

Not to mention that she's damned tiny. You've got to watch out for the tiny ones.

I see your point, althought it never played that way to me. Especially because she ended up choking the life out of him with her chains.