Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

[BBally81]

They didn't always make the opposing side that sympathetic back then, there were a lot of media even back then where the other side was portrayed with less dimension.

For example there's the classic Doctor Who episode, The Sunmakers, which was a Sci-Fi take on the rise of taxes in the UK at the time had a main antagonist called The Collector, whose job was to collect high taxes from the inhabitants of a planet his company ruled over and executed those who got in his way, was a knock on the then-Chancellor of the Exchequer, Denis Healey right down to the bushy eyebrows and he was as sniveling and one dimensional as you get.

And not all modern Western media today follows the "one dimensional opposing side" formula, especially media made in Europe.

I feel there is some cherry picking going on here.

[Thebestoftherest]

I agree that what we see of Mon Mothma in the films is extremely limited, though I'd argue that we still see from her enough to satisfy the point I was trying to make. Even in the films it's clear that she's someone that others view with respect and that she is a kind of political leader rather than a warrior or anything of that sort.

You have no idea how silly this praise sounds for someone who grew up in the european eastern block and the aftermath of the eastern block collapse, particularly in a country that was suffering from labour shortages since it's inception and thus had everyone mobilized, including women and featured a high rate of single mothers. I recognize that a female leader standing around and blathering already was the cutting edge in relation to western societies of the time, but that's so backwards to me, that I can't help but laugh.
Don't take it personal, it's the disparity of experiences that makes me chuckle. That exact same disparity happens within my country as well, were us Eastern Germans are, to this day, bewildered by so many things being considered "women empowering", which have been the standard to us since the 60s at least. While the Western Germans, to this day, still have this concept of "mother at home and hearth, father at work to fund the family"-thing being an ideal, where it's inconceivable in the East to not have both parents being in the workforce (for funding reasons alone already) unless at least one of them being top level earners. In fact, home-and-hearth-women are generally scoffed at, because they're percieved as trophy wives or welfare queens, depending on the overall wealth-level of the family.

[McAvoy]

Enola Holmes is a perfect example. It would be too easy to make her better than Sherlock. Or not need him at all, or figure out things that he could not figure out. As in knocking down a man to elevate the woman.

She still misses things, messes up, but at the same time shows the same potential as Sherlock. Not to mention both movies had a feminist message which didn't need to beat you over the head repeatedly while dragging every man with it. It fits narratively, historically and more importantly, for a movie entertaining.

Sure the movies has its flaws but at the core they are pretty decent.

I haven't seen it, but even if the character is excellent it's ultimately a male derivative character. In other words, it's not an original character (either created by modern writers or a pre-existing character featured by modern writers, like Galadriel). Again, this wouldn't be so bad in a vacuum but at least part of the problem with writing of women these days is that it seems like they're always re-imagined versions of male characters, or characters designed to take the place of a popular male character, or a character who otherwise isn't her own unique character. It's like they all fail some modified version of the Bechdel test which asks whether a female character has any reason to exist that doesn't derive from a male.

OK? And?

The fact that Enola Holmes movies are jumping off (didn't know there was other media about her that predates the movies either) a old British series that happens to have a male character front and center means nothing.

Was she written well? Sure. Movie good? Yeah. Did they do something different than a female Sherlock Holmes? Yes. Did they do someghing female centric for the movie? Yeah. Did it distract from anything? No.

I don't care about whether she is derived off of Sherlock Holmes. If the movie sucked then sure complain away. But the movies didn't suck.

[Lazerlike42]

Enola Holmes is a perfect example. It would be too easy to make her better than Sherlock. Or not need him at all, or figure out things that he could not figure out. As in knocking down a man to elevate the woman.

She still misses things, messes up, but at the same time shows the same potential as Sherlock. Not to mention both movies had a feminist message which didn't need to beat you over the head repeatedly while dragging every man with it. It fits narratively, historically and more importantly, for a movie entertaining.

Sure the movies has its flaws but at the core they are pretty decent.

I haven't seen it, but even if the character is excellent it's ultimately a male derivative character. In other words, it's not an original character (either created by modern writers or a pre-existing character featured by modern writers, like Galadriel). Again, this wouldn't be so bad in a vacuum but at least part of the problem with writing of women these days is that it seems like they're always re-imagined versions of male characters, or characters designed to take the place of a popular male character, or a character who otherwise isn't her own unique character. It's like they all fail some modified version of the Bechdel test which asks whether a female character has any reason to exist that doesn't derive from a male.

OK? And?

The fact that Enola Holmes movies are jumping off (didn't know there was other media about her that predates the movies either) a old British series that happens to have a male character front and center means nothing.

Was she written well? Sure. Movie good? Yeah. Did they do something different than a female Sherlock Holmes? Yes. Did they do someghing female centric for the movie? Yeah. Did it distract from anything? No.

I don't care about whether she is derived off of Sherlock Holmes. If the movie sucked then sure complain away. But the movies didn't suck.

The fact that the character "jumps off" of a pre-existing work means quite a lot. There's nothing wrong with characters that are based on other works, but when all characters are based on other works there's a problem. What's one thing that is widely lamented about the entertainment industry today? That everything is a remake, a relaunch, a reboot, or a universe expansion and that there's very little original work being produced. Remakes, relaunches, etc. can be good, but when that's all you get people start to notice. Not everything has to be totally original, but some things need to be original, and I'd even go so far as to say that I don't think it's controversial to say that most things need to be original or else things start to feel stagnant and bland.

Original works are what gave us Star Trek, for example. Getting TNG and DS9 and other stuff based on or built on that was great! - but you can't only do that or else you get, well, what we see from CBS/Paramount today. If all the networks wanted to do was make a bunch of Bonanza spinoffs then we'd never have gotten Star Trek and so never gotten TNG, DS9, etc.

In a similar way, there's nothing wrong with having characters which are based on or built on other characters - or even which are wholesale copies. House was a good show, and the fact that he was really just a copy of Sherlock Holmes didn't detract from it. The problem comes when that's all you get, or when that's most of what you get.

Taken on her own, Enola Holmes may make a great character. My point isn't to dismiss that in and of itself. My point is that when discussing whether Hollywood has a general lack of skill at creating female characters the example that sprang to mind was a character that came from something else rather than an original character. In other words, even if the character is excellent on her own I don't think she'd serve as the best example in this discussion. You see, the kind of "strong female character" that Galadriel is (to go back to where we started with this conversation) is perfectly fine as one kind of strong female character. The problem is that this archetype is largely the only type of "strong female character" they seem to know how to write anymore. Thus, the problem we're discussing here is in part a problem of creative diversity. Maybe Enola Holmes is a worthwhile example of a well written character, but I'd say she's probably not a great example for our purposes because even if written well, she's still not altogether original and so still seems like a manifestation of that lack of creative diversity.

In trying to put my thoughts into words here, I guess I may say that thinking back I probably overstated my point. Still, I think that for the purposes of demonstrating that Hollywood writers can write good female characters it would be much stronger to be able to cite some entirely original characters.

[McAvoy]

Enola Holmes is a perfect example. It would be too easy to make her better than Sherlock. Or not need him at all, or figure out things that he could not figure out. As in knocking down a man to elevate the woman.

She still misses things, messes up, but at the same time shows the same potential as Sherlock. Not to mention both movies had a feminist message which didn't need to beat you over the head repeatedly while dragging every man with it. It fits narratively, historically and more importantly, for a movie entertaining.

Sure the movies has its flaws but at the core they are pretty decent.

I haven't seen it, but even if the character is excellent it's ultimately a male derivative character. In other words, it's not an original character (either created by modern writers or a pre-existing character featured by modern writers, like Galadriel). Again, this wouldn't be so bad in a vacuum but at least part of the problem with writing of women these days is that it seems like they're always re-imagined versions of male characters, or characters designed to take the place of a popular male character, or a character who otherwise isn't her own unique character. It's like they all fail some modified version of the Bechdel test which asks whether a female character has any reason to exist that doesn't derive from a male.

OK? And?

The fact that Enola Holmes movies are jumping off (didn't know there was other media about her that predates the movies either) a old British series that happens to have a male character front and center means nothing.

Was she written well? Sure. Movie good? Yeah. Did they do something different than a female Sherlock Holmes? Yes. Did they do someghing female centric for the movie? Yeah. Did it distract from anything? No.

I don't care about whether she is derived off of Sherlock Holmes. If the movie sucked then sure complain away. But the movies didn't suck.

The fact that the character "jumps off" of a pre-existing work means quite a lot. There's nothing wrong with characters that are based on other works, but when all characters are based on other works there's a problem. What's one thing that is widely lamented about the entertainment industry today? That everything is a remake, a relaunch, a reboot, or a universe expansion and that there's very little original work being produced. Remakes, relaunches, etc. can be good, but when that's all you get people start to notice. Not everything has to be totally original, but some things need to be original, and I'd even go so far as to say that I don't think it's controversial to say that most things need to be original or else things start to feel stagnant and bland.

Original works are what gave us Star Trek, for example. Getting TNG and DS9 and other stuff based on or built on that was great! - but you can't only do that or else you get, well, what we see from CBS/Paramount today. If all the networks wanted to do was make a bunch of Bonanza spinoffs then we'd never have gotten Star Trek and so never gotten TNG, DS9, etc.

In a similar way, there's nothing wrong with having characters which are based on or built on other characters - or even which are wholesale copies. House was a good show, and the fact that he was really just a copy of Sherlock Holmes didn't detract from it. The problem comes when that's all you get, or when that's most of what you get.

Taken on her own, Enola Holmes may make a great character. My point isn't to dismiss that in and of itself. My point is that when discussing whether Hollywood has a general lack of skill at creating female characters the example that sprang to mind was a character that came from something else rather than an original character. In other words, even if the character is excellent on her own I don't think she'd serve as the best example in this discussion. You see, the kind of "strong female character" that Galadriel is (to go back to where we started with this conversation) is perfectly fine as one kind of strong female character. The problem is that this archetype is largely the only type of "strong female character" they seem to know how to write anymore. Thus, the problem we're discussing here is in part a problem of creative diversity. Maybe Enola Holmes is a worthwhile example of a well written character, but I'd say she's probably not a great example for our purposes because even if written well, she's still not altogether original and so still seems like a manifestation of that lack of creative diversity.

In trying to put my thoughts into words here, I guess I may say that thinking back I probably overstated my point. Still, I think that for the purposes of demonstrating that Hollywood writers can write good female characters it would be much stronger to be able to cite some entirely original characters.

I get it. It's as if Hollywood ran out of ideas.

But at the same time, Enola Holmes for example is that she isn't some sidekick to Sherlock before Watson or that she is superior to him. In fact in the movies, it does make a point that Sherlock might be better at the whole detective thing than she is even if it might be just at experience. And that is why it's actually good. Among other reasons.

In its case it's not a matter of gender swapping. What it really is just using an well established name like Sherlock and introducing a seperate character with her own history and her own personality. It's a simple concept thats been around for a long time. Think comic books. Batgirl or She-Hulk, for example.

I also think that even with Millie Bobby Brown of Stranger Things fame may not be able to headline her own movie without someone else for star power. Which is why they has Henry Cavill come in as Sherlock. This isn't a new thing or strange. I actually have a feeling that Millie may end up being a younger Scarlett Johanson in the long run.

I guess they could have made a movie about Nancy Drew but there is already a series about that one.

[clearspira]

Why does Hollywood gender swap successful male characters? Why does Hollywood race swap successful white characters?

Because it's fucking easy. That's why. Why make a decent female or black chatacter from the ground up when you can just leech off the popularity of the existing fanbase? It has never been about representation or equality or any such thing. It's laziness. Pure and simple.

And the thing is, it almost never works beyond the first film because that is not the character fans came to love. Men and women are not the same. They don't act the same, they don't have the same lives, they don't have the same exeriences. It is fundamentally a different character.

And the beauty is, Hollywood has weaponised sexism and racism. "Don't like our gender swap? It wasn't our mistake, our bad writing, our bad idea. It's you. You're a sexist. Let's create snd stoke drama on Twitter to cover ourselves." You see it every single time.

[Frustration]

And the social associations of race go far beyond simple prejudices. You can't alter a character's race and automatically assume the character's stories won't be changed.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

The workings of demographic inclusion are due mostly to movie theaters being on the decline from the outset of just before the 2010's came around.

This isn't so much of a hostile takeover spurred from the Obama and later social media age, it's a long process of studios needing to make something non-problematic from the ground up that can also sell to the general audiences on a large enough scale. That is ever since the standard marketing formulas for commercial genres became stale for millennials and onward.