Excraft Posted April 29 Posted April 29 28 minutes ago, battlewraith said: Go into that class and tell those ladies that they shouldn't hold any leadership positions. That would destroy them--they would become girlbosses. Being a mother and a matriarch is enough. No one has said anything of the sort and you know it. 1 1
battlewraith Posted April 29 Posted April 29 9 minutes ago, Excraft said: No one has said anything of the sort and you know it. You've implied that throughout with respect to Sue. You give two options: either she serves as the mother figure of the team but doesn't officially lead anything. Or she becomes a leader and is therefore a reimagined girlboss for a modern audience. Nobody has given any kind of coherent explanation for how giving her some sort of authority outside of her family relationships is going to ruin the character. Other than cherrypicking examples of other films (Snow White, etc.) where changes were done in poorly received films. Moreover, I can't find any information to the effect that Sue in this film is leader of the Fantastic Four. Wikipedia says that she is the leader of the Future Foundation--which seems to be another team. So that begs the question, what is Sue allowed to be in charge of before she transitions into a horrid girlboss? It's deeply profound issues like this that keep someone... somewhere.. awake at night..at least part of the time. 1 3
Excraft Posted April 29 Posted April 29 9 minutes ago, battlewraith said: You've implied that throughout with respect to Sue. No, I have not. That's what you would like people to be saying to continue arguing with them, but it isn't. The only person insulting Sue Storm and saying she is shallow, boring and weak has been you. 10 minutes ago, battlewraith said: You give two options: either she serves as the mother figure of the team but doesn't officially lead anything. Again, being the "maternal" figure to the team is part of who she is. It's not a weakness, it doesn't make her shallow or boring. It's part of her character in the comics and what has endeared fans to her character for the last 60 years. Read the linked article above, I'm not the only one who says this, and anyone with a basic knowledge of her character understands this much about her. She's not a pushover. She's a valued member of the team. Changing that is changing a core part of who she is as a person and a character. That doesn't work for me, same as it wouldn't work for me if they made Black Panther a Chinese midget living in Australia or The Thing the "smart one" and Reed the brute, or Tony Stark a destitute moron who wears rags instead of a suit of armor. It doesn't work. See the last Fantastic Four film. 12 minutes ago, battlewraith said: Or she becomes a leader and is therefore a reimagined girlboss for a modern audience. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a female character being a leader or in a position of authority. No one has said otherwise. See the aforementioned Captain Janeway, Elizabeth Weir, Samantha Carter et al. All of them well loved, well written characters. There is an enormous difference between a well written, well fleshed out character and a poorly written mary sue/girlboss. This is no different than than a well written male heroic figure and a badly written one. Given the recent track record of Disney and Hollywood in general, it's a safe bet that when you hear words like "modern audiences" and "modern sensibilities" used to describe "updates" to the characters, more often than not, it means they're falling on the poorly written side of the equation. See the most recent Snow White film, Rey in the new Star Wars films, Terminator: Dark Fate etc. There are (sadly) many examples that proof this out, and that is a legitimate concern to have, no matter how much you want to argue. 1 1 1
battlewraith Posted April 29 Posted April 29 17 minutes ago, Excraft said: No, I have not. That's what you would like people to be saying to continue arguing with them, but it isn't. The only person insulting Sue Storm and saying she is shallow, boring and weak has been you. Again, being the "maternal" figure to the team is part of who she is. It's not a weakness, it doesn't make her shallow or boring. It's part of her character in the comics and what has endeared fans to her character for the last 60 years. Read the linked article above, I'm not the only one who says this, and anyone with a basic knowledge of her character understands this much about her. She's not a pushover. She's a valued member of the team. Changing that is changing a core part of who she is as a person and a character. That doesn't work for me, same as it wouldn't work for me if they made Black Panther a Chinese midget living in Australia or The Thing the "smart one" and Reed the brute, or Tony Stark a destitute moron who wears rags instead of a suit of armor. It doesn't work. See the last Fantastic Four film. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a female character being a leader or in a position of authority. No one has said otherwise. See the aforementioned Captain Janeway, Elizabeth Weir, Samantha Carter et al. All of them well loved, well written characters. There is an enormous difference between a well written, well fleshed out character and a poorly written mary sue/girlboss. This is no different than than a well written male heroic figure and a badly written one. Given the recent track record of Disney and Hollywood in general, it's a safe bet that when you hear words like "modern audiences" and "modern sensibilities" used to describe "updates" to the characters, more often than not, it means they're falling on the poorly written side of the equation. See the most recent Snow White film, Rey in the new Star Wars films, Terminator: Dark Fate etc. There are (sadly) many examples that proof this out, and that is a legitimate concern to have, no matter how much you want to argue. More of the same. You just repeat your bias while dodging the argument. There is no reason why Sue can't be a mother AND have a leadership position. It can work. It has worked already in the comics. You are insisting on a false dichotomy--either this characterization entirely conforms to some unspecified era of the comics that suits you or the characterization is going to be bad. Let's try this: I'm an editor for Marvel and I'm going to do a new iteration of one of the superhero teams--West Coast Avengers, or defenders, or something. And I decide that I would like Sue Storm to be the leader of the team. Given all that classic Sue brings to the table--why would she be a bad choice? 1 1 3
Excraft Posted April 29 Posted April 29 43 minutes ago, battlewraith said: More of the same. You just repeat your bias while dodging the argument. What bias? 44 minutes ago, battlewraith said: There is no reason why Sue can't be a mother AND have a leadership position. It can work. It has worked already in the comics. I didn't say she can't be a mother and have a leadership position. I've said that she's not the leader of the team in the comics, Reed is. If that's what Disney/Marvel is doing for this movie, ok but I personally don't see the necessity for it, especially if they're going to ruin her character by turning her into the cliche mary sue/girl boss they're known for creating. Sue can be a strong, powerful and valued member of the team without being the leader of it, same as Ben Grimm and Jonny Storm. 49 minutes ago, battlewraith said: Let's try this: I'm an editor for Marvel and I'm going to do a new iteration of one of the superhero teams--West Coast Avengers, or defenders, or something. And I decide that I would like Sue Storm to be the leader of the team. Given all that classic Sue brings to the table--why would she be a bad choice? I don't think she'd be a bad choice at all. I never said she would be a bad choice for a leader. 1
Troo Posted April 30 Posted April 30 1 "Homecoming is not perfect but it is still better than the alternative.. at least so far" - Unknown (Wise words Unknown!) Si vis pacem, para bellum
ZacKing Posted April 30 Posted April 30 5 hours ago, battlewraith said: You just repeat your bias while dodging the argument. Yep, you do.😉 On 4/25/2025 at 3:30 PM, battlewraith said: It would be really disappointing if they just relegated her to being a shallow mother figure character. 2 1
battlewraith Posted April 30 Posted April 30 6 hours ago, ZacKing said: Yep, you do.😉 Lol I don't even think you understand the objection. But at least you're not straining yourself anymore actually trying to say anything. 1
ZacKing Posted April 30 Posted April 30 3 hours ago, battlewraith said: Lol I don't even think you understand the objection. Oh I understand just fine. You don't understand the character of Sue Storm at all, and believe female characters who are written to have strong maternal instincts and/or are mothers with children are weak and shallow and boring. You said so yourself. 1
battlewraith Posted April 30 Posted April 30 58 minutes ago, ZacKing said: Oh I understand just fine. You don't understand the character of Sue Storm at all, and believe female characters who are written to have strong maternal instincts and/or are mothers with children are weak and shallow and boring. You said so yourself. Characters who are defined solely by motherly traits, probably by writers who can't imagine anything else to do with the character. This is how the Stan Lee era Sue is generally regarded--even the George Marston quote Excraft posted describes that era as stereotypical writing that didn't serve the character well. This is the writing that you said that you would prefer over Sue having a leadership position. You are the outlier in the fandom. I don't have a problem with female characters that have children or display maternal instincts. I just don't want to sit in a theater and watch Sue mother grown ass men for two hours because it's an easy way to define a character. There's a big difference between following her development in the comics, over decades, and a feature film. In the comics Sue has lead the team. She had a stint as a supervillain. She got a doctorate. And during the civil war storyline she and Johnny left Reed and were on the opposing side of the conflict. But oh noes! They might give her some leadership position in a movie...better start fretting over girlbossing. 2
Excraft Posted April 30 Posted April 30 (edited) 3 hours ago, battlewraith said: I don't have a problem with female characters that have children or display maternal instincts. On 4/29/2025 at 11:01 AM, battlewraith said: What he did to Ripley was pandering and a betrayal of the character. Cameron does a 180 in the sequel and has her chasing after an endangered child. Edited April 30 by Excraft 1
battlewraith Posted April 30 Posted April 30 21 minutes ago, Excraft said: quote taken out of context Right. because Ripley, a compelling resourceful character in the first film, was not a mother in Alien. There was absolutely no indication that she had a child or was driven by maternal instinct. Cameron ramped up the suspense in a stereotypical way by having her look after an endangered child--which seemed to work for people who mistakenly think that Aliens was the first film. The gimmick worked for one film. Then Newt was promptly killed off in Alien 3. Probably because a maternal Ripley would not have wanted anything to do with more xenomorph action. In fact early scripts had Hicks become the main protagonist. 2 1
Excraft Posted April 30 Posted April 30 3 hours ago, battlewraith said: I don't have a problem with female characters that have children or display maternal instincts. On 4/29/2025 at 11:01 AM, battlewraith said: What he did to Ripley was pandering and a betrayal of the character. Cameron does a 180 in the sequel and has her chasing after an endangered child. 1 hour ago, battlewraith said: Cameron ramped up the suspense in a stereotypical way by having her look after an endangered child--which seemed to work for people who mistakenly think that Aliens was the first film. The gimmick worked for one film. 1
ZacKing Posted May 1 Posted May 1 18 hours ago, battlewraith said: Right. because Ripley, a compelling resourceful character in the first film, was not a mother in Alien. There was absolutely no indication that she had a child or was driven by maternal instinct. Cameron ramped up the suspense in a stereotypical way by having her look after an endangered child--which seemed to work for people who mistakenly think that Aliens was the first film. The gimmick worked for one film. James Cameron adding a child to Ripley's backstory in no way diminished her character. Ripley was a compelling, intelligent, brave and resourceful character in Aliens, just as she was in the first movie. 1
battlewraith Posted May 1 Posted May 1 1 hour ago, ZacKing said: James Cameron adding a child to Ripley's backstory in no way diminished her character. Ripley was a compelling, intelligent, brave and resourceful character in Aliens, just as she was in the first movie. Ripley was brought up in the context of this discussion as an example of a strong "mother type character" by someone who seemed to be unaware that the first Alien film was a thing. Which is overt fail, because--as you point out-- Ripley was a compelling character in the first film where there was no indication of her mothering anything. 1
ZacKing Posted May 1 Posted May 1 26 minutes ago, battlewraith said: Ripley was brought up in the context of this discussion as an example of a strong "mother type character" by someone who seemed to be unaware that the first Alien film was a thing. Which is overt fail, because--as you point out-- Ripley was a compelling character in the first film where there was no indication of her mothering anything. No. You're totally wrong. Ripley was brought up along with Sarah Connor as clear examples of compelling female characters that have a strong maternal instinct as part of their motivations behind their actions. This was done to refute your statements that female characters who are mothers and/or have strong maternal instincts (like Sue Storm) are shallow, boring and weak. Again, Ripley's backstory being expanded in the second film to include her having had a child didn't diminish her character in the least. She was still very much compelling, intelligent, brave and resourceful. She did what a team of highly trained, well armed soldiers were unable to do. 2
battlewraith Posted May 1 Posted May 1 4 minutes ago, ZacKing said: No. You're totally wrong. Ripley was brought up along with Sarah Connor as clear examples of compelling female characters that have a strong maternal instinct as part of their motivations behind their actions. This was done to refute your statements that female characters who are mothers and/or have strong maternal instincts (like Sue Storm) are shallow, boring and weak. Again, Ripley's backstory being expanded in the second film to include her having had a child didn't diminish her character in the least. She was still very much compelling, intelligent, brave and resourceful. She did what a team of highly trained, well armed soldiers were unable to do. Again. Ripley was a strong character in the first film and none of that was driven by maternal instinct. AFAIK, none of the other films that feature Siqourney Weaver besides Aliens feature her acting out of maternal instinct. None of the more recent films in that setting, despite having a variety of strong female protagonists, follow that cliche. It was a gimmick that appeared in one film. The idea that Ripley doing what a team of highly trained, well armed soldiers were unable to do--is somehow because of maternal instinct--is absolutely ridiculous. It was because she was already shown to be extremely competent in the first film. Characters who are mothers or act out of maternal instinct are not necessarily weak, shallow or boring. Relying on that as a crutch to ramp up interest in a character is weak or cliche storytelling. Was Ripley diminished by it? No. Did it add anything to the character? Not really. It just added suspense in an action film. Ironically, the problem some people have here with Sue (potentially) in the upcoming film is the inverse of the logic being deployed here for Ripley. Ripley is not diminished by Cameron depicting her as have maternal instinct. But Sue, an established mother figure, is going to become an asshole or somehow destroy the film if she's given a leadership role. I actually don't think all this whinging is about Sue anyway. It's about Reed. Just as a vampire recoils from the light of day, some dudes are horrified by the thought of a cherished male hero being upstaged by a woman. 1 1
Excraft Posted May 1 Posted May 1 On 4/30/2025 at 11:43 AM, battlewraith said: I don't have a problem with female characters that have children or display maternal instincts. On 4/29/2025 at 11:01 AM, battlewraith said: What he did to Ripley was pandering and a betrayal of the character. Cameron does a 180 in the sequel and has her chasing after an endangered child. 22 hours ago, battlewraith said: Cameron ramped up the suspense in a stereotypical way by having her look after an endangered child--which seemed to work for people who mistakenly think that Aliens was the first film. The gimmick worked for one film. 18 minutes ago, battlewraith said: None of the more recent films in that setting, despite having a variety of strong female protagonists, follow that cliche. It was a gimmick that appeared in one film. 18 minutes ago, battlewraith said: Relying on that as a crutch to ramp up interest in a character is weak or cliche storytelling.
battlewraith Posted May 1 Posted May 1 1 minute ago, Excraft said: Near complete lack of reading comprehension. 🫠
PeregrineFalcon Posted May 1 Posted May 1 1 hour ago, battlewraith said: I actually don't think all this whinging is about Sue anyway. It's about Reed. Just as a vampire recoils from the light of day, some dudes are horrified by the thought of a cherished male hero being upstaged by a woman. @Excraft @ZacKing Do you guys need anymore proof that he's never going to change his mind, no matter what you say? 1 Being constantly offended doesn't mean you're right, it means you're too narcissistic to tolerate opinions different than your own.
battlewraith Posted May 1 Posted May 1 7 minutes ago, TTRPGWhiz said: Feels like this convo has reached a nadir, no? I was done yesterday.
ZacKing Posted May 1 Posted May 1 1 hour ago, PeregrineFalcon said: @Excraft @ZacKing Do you guys need anymore proof that he's never going to change his mind, no matter what you say? I knew this a long time ago. Fairly clear who has issues with women or anything feminine about their characters. 1
Recommended Posts