Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Didn't they try that with Anakin's apprentice in Clone Wars, and even movies going back to The Ewok movies? Seems the female element has always been there. Unless explosions, lightsabre fights space battles and action etc are suspended, you could have a committee of feminists in there and it'll STILL be considered the domain of the male.(Speculation, of course, but I bet 'The sound of music' or 'Mary Poppins' have larger female fanbases than they would have had if it had featured the afformentioned epic scifi battles etc etc)
Janeway being captain of Voyager didn't seem to interest too many women I knew.... Likewise there are probably a lot of females who would were fans of Star Trek, Star Wars and other movies and loved them regardless of whether or not a female was playing the lead role or not...because they were good movies..
A 'female element' is nowhere near the same as stopping something being heavily male-centric. It's not just about the style, though that is in a male-dominated area, but it's about the casting and roles given to gender. You just can't ignore that, by a staggering margin, Star Wars is a franchise that pays much more attention to male roles and, basically, male views. Again, this is not necessarily a criticism, though by these days it is pretty dated. But I don't think you've got much ground in trying to deny it, and changing that might be a very viable tactic.
Janeway was a man, btw, odd as that may sound. There was nothing about her (dreadful) personality that was actually providing a female balance in the series. Pretty much everything she said and did was as if she was a man (and this was in part why the original actress junked the role). DS9 did better in that regard, though it was hardly a revelation there. And that ridiculous damn gel rubbing scene right at the start of Enterprise killed that one. Now, all these things can be enjoyed regardless, but it is still a facet of them worthy of comment. Putting a woman as your lead does not in itself clear something of being male-orientated, but taking the failure of Janeway and implying it means that these gender things do not matter is a mistake. There is definitely a female market out there that could do with some decent female roles in such franchises, and it might also be said that franchises in general could be improved by a more rounded perspective.
In short- and we really have no idea about whether this is actually an angle they are pushing or even if the rumour is true, we still have one basic point- Star Wars is male-centric, and indications that they might try and change that are worthy of comment. Yes, the end result might just be more male-centricness. But maybe not- we'll see.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Dude WW counts. It's where most the income comes from.
"RotS made most of it's "gap difference" in foreign ticket sales due to a much larger world-wide release."
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
I made a point which was the only 2 SW films where we do see some female skin (or skin tight clothes on) were actually the least successful movies of their respective Trilogies.
The most perverted KMC poster to have ever posted on these boards, Rogue Jedi, said he fapped furiously to Leia's floppy **** in A New Hope. No bra, bro...and it was form fitting enough to work for some jollies.
Some women still cosplay, quite sexily, in Leia's ANH outfit.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Of course ROTJ has an 8.4. All the OT are rated high. But like you've noticed yourself ROTJ is still rated lower than the other OT movies despite the gold bikini eye candy.
It's my favorite of the OT, still. pained
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Really? I didn't know that. Need to look out for that next time!
Bring kleenexes and lotion.
Spoiler:
Because rewatching a ANH is going to be so awesome that you're going to cry a whole bunch. So much so that you'll have to lotion your face from rubbing it raw with those Kleenexes. WHAT DID YOU THINK I MEANT? >😐
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Can be a bit of a circular argument, that.Still, regardless of the potential rights and wrongs of it, the fact remains that SW is seen as male-centric, and if the new production is trying to change that, it is newsworthy.
How so? On the contrary that's as linear as you can get, right? It's male-centric because its catered to males, period. As most sci fi/fantasy (or what have you) action films are. Besides, these things are a business first anyway. They are not primarily doing any of this for our delight. Most importantly they're looking to net the most amount of cash while interpreting a favorable vision, to them, that's relatable to males, especially young males. And thats a space faring action/adventure.
And changing that'll be newsworthy alright. To the detriment of the franchise. I know i'll catch flak for this but so what, but altering Star Wars's gender demographic to female-centric would be abominable, fan-wise and business-wise.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
A 'female element' is nowhere near the same as stopping something being heavily male-centric. It's not just about the style, though that is in a male-dominated area, but it's about the casting and roles given to gender. You just can't ignore that, by a staggering margin, Star Wars is a franchise that pays much more attention to male roles and, basically, male views. Again, this is not necessarily a criticism, though by these days it is pretty dated. But I don't think you've got much ground in trying to deny it, and changing that might be a very viable tactic.Janeway was a man, btw, odd as that may sound. There was nothing about her (dreadful) personality that was actually providing a female balance in the series. Pretty much everything she said and did was as if she was a man (and this was in part why the original actress junked the role). DS9 did better in that regard, though it was hardly a revelation there. And that ridiculous damn gel rubbing scene right at the start of Enterprise killed that one. Now, all these things can be enjoyed regardless, but it is still a facet of them worthy of comment. Putting a woman as your lead does not in itself clear something of being male-orientated, but taking the failure of Janeway and implying it means that these gender things do not matter is a mistake. There is definitely a female market out there that could do with some decent female roles in such franchises, and it might also be said that franchises in general could be improved by a more rounded perspective.
In short- and we really have no idea about whether this is actually an angle they are pushing or even if the rumour is true, we still have one basic point- Star Wars is male-centric, and indications that they might try and change that are worthy of comment. Yes, the end result might just be more male-centricness. But maybe not- we'll see.
A good balanced view.. Nice to know I wasnt the only one not being a fan of Janeway, too...cheers. 🙂
Originally posted by Ushgarak
And that ridiculous damn gel rubbing scene right at the start of Enterprise killed that one..
Ha.
Though this was as much geared towards male eye-candy as female eye-candy. There's some Star Trek documentary (maybe Trekkies 2?) and a few women mention Trip in that scene and swoon.
Originally posted by Robtard
Ha.Though this was as much geared towards male eye-candy as female eye-candy. There's some Star Trek documentary (maybe Trekkies 2?) and a few women mention Trip in that scene and swoon.
There are more than one of these female eye-candy scenes. Trip, Malcom, and Travis get plenty of screen time. In fact, there is one episode where Trip runs around in his underwear for most of the episode...and Trip's character makes a comment about that in a later episode in a way that makes it seem like he is breaking the fourth wall.
(Side Note: To me, what they did with Trip was similar to what they did with Riker in the first and second season of TNG: he went shirtless and sauced it up with the ladies on several occasions).
Could this new Star Wars do with some eye candy for the ladies? Maybe...maybe they can make it more "mass-audience" appealing. One thing I noticed about Star Trek (obviously, the one JJ Abrams was involved in) was how appealing it was to all sorts of different people: male and female, too. It seemed to have a universal appeal to it. I don't think pure sex appeal will be the only answer nor do I think Abrams would rely on that. But I do suspect there will be doses of both male and female forms in this new Star Wars film.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Could this new Star Wars do with some eye candy for the ladies? Maybe...maybe they can make it more "mass-audience" appealing.
Eerrr.... we are talking SW here, right? One of the largest grossing box office hits in movie history... Maybe, just maybe, SW, without us knowing it, IS mass audience appealing?
As I stated before: in stories women can relate well to both male and female leads, men have more trouble relating to female leads. In general of course (there is always Ripley, although she was quite masculine in character - see Ush's comment about Janeway).
So if you want to have a mass audience appeal, you go for male leads. Exceptions excluded of course.
On a side note: showing female skin is not focussed on women, but on men.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
How so? On the contrary that's as linear as you can get, right? It's male-centric because its catered to males, period. As most sci fi/fantasy (or what have you) action films are. Besides, these things are a business first anyway. They are not primarily doing any of this for our delight. Most importantly they're looking to net the most amount of cash while interpreting a favorable vision, to them, that's relatable to males, especially young males. And thats a space faring action/adventure.And changing that'll be newsworthy alright. To the detriment of the franchise. I know i'll catch flak for this but so what, but altering Star Wars's gender demographic to female-centric would be abominable, fan-wise and business-wise.
Actually, this is about as circular as you get. You claim that it is male-centric because it is aimed at guys, but what about if what guys want is influenced by the way these films present themselves? It becomes a self-perpetuating concept that is hard to break, and you start to use 'we are trying to hit our target audience' as en excuse for what you might actually be doing, which is influencing your audience to suit what you produce. So, these films make it so people are influenced to want more of these films... in a circle.
Now, as a profit making mechanism, fine. But as an excuse, for why the films are like this, it's rubbish, because it was only films being like that that made people want them like that in the first place (or by more complicated extension, all fiction and not just films, but for simplicity this is best looked at in isolation). That's why I'd reject "it's catered for males" as a viable argument. It's only the existence of such things that make people think you have to cater to males in that way. It effectively comes down to "The films are male-centric because they are male-centirc."
The very concept of SW story in each Episode is an adventurous voyage - physical and spiritual (not in deep philosophical manner, but rather in connection with the Force). The events are constantly on the move in the SW universe. So if the hack of a director catches this idea and actually puts it on the screen (even Lucas himself managed to do it with PT), then he might survive. Otherwise he will be lynched by an angry SW mob.
Originally posted by Gambler
The very concept of SW story in each Episode is an adventurous voyage - physical and spiritual... (even Lucas himself managed to do it with PT)
Nothing Abrams has ever done has been as bad as what Lucas did to the PT--in every regard. And Abrams has not done anything "bad".
Originally posted by queeq
Eerrr.... we are talking SW here, right? One of the largest grossing box office hits in movie history... Maybe, just maybe, SW, without us knowing it, IS mass audience appealing?
I think only 3 or 4 movies can be called "mass audience appealing". None of the Star Wars movies are that.
Originally posted by Lord LucienNothing Abrams has ever done has been as bad as what Lucas did to the PT--in every regard. And Abrams has not done anything "bad".
Maaaaaaan. You trippin'.