The Case for Captain Marvel

The i09 is reporting that the awesome Battlestar Galatica star Katee Sackhoff is rumored to be in negotiations to join the Marvel universe as the long-awaited Captain Marvel. Will she get a stand alone film? Will she appear in Avengers: Age of Ultron? Still no word. 

If Carol Danvers does finally grace the big screen, there are a few things we are going to have to insist on:

1. She must kick ass.
2. She must kick every man’s ass.
3. She will not be used in a romantic storyline
4. She must retain all of her powers from her comic
5. She’ll be known as Captain, not Ms.
6. She’ll wear an appropriate costume that she can actually kick ass in

My hope is that Danvers will appear in Age of Ultron (as she does in the comic) but will instead survive. I’m even willing to see her introduced as Ms. Marvel if it means her actions will promote her to Captain, and then lead-in to a Captain Marvel/Carol Danvers feature film. 

Marvel, don’t play with us here. It is time for a female-led feature film. Just today, Marvel Studios president Louis D’Esposito was quoted promoting his interest and desire in a female-led film. He told Comingsoon that

 “There’s obviously a drumbeat that is banging louder and louder that we want a female lead superhero….[W]e have strong female characters in our films from Black Widow to Pepper Potts to Peggy Carter and you never know. Maybe there’s an offshoot film with one of them. Or Captain Marvel, you know?”

Why, yes, Mr. D’Esposito, I do know. Tumblr knows (seriously, just type in Captain Marvel today and see the outpouring of support). All of woman-kind knows (that’s half of the planet, Mr. Esposito, in case you need a reminder). I wish I could put into sufficient words just why this is important. The moment I attempt it, however, I falter to truly express its potential power in film today. Carol Danvers represents not just a female superhero but a feminist female superhero. She is flawed, she struggles, she fights, and she tries to do what is right. She has super powers, but before that she is a woman and she is a person. Just as Tony Stark was the perfect, seriously flawed man-made superhero to grace our screens in 2008, Carol Danvers is the right choice for 2013 and into the next few years. Her latest incarnation represents not only Fourth Wave Feminism but also post-war survival and realism. She is a victim of war, a survivor of large-scale destruction, and a genius built for twenty-first century brilliance. 

You see, the amazing thing about Carol Danvers is that she is no different from Captain America or Iron-Man or The Hulk. Her condition is a result of her brilliance and desire for human betterment (Yes, it went a little wrong, but hey, she got some pretty awesome powers out of it). If Esposito, Marvel, and Disney are concerned about the marketing and success of a female-led superhero film, I ask them to pause and consider the material. As films like The Heat and The Hunger Games (and as I’ve already detailed in this post) prove, female-led films are pulling in huge numbers and serious box office money when they are portrayed not as shrill stereotypes but as the truthful, strong women they are. If they have a strong story and a strong character, audiences will come. Danvers has exactly that. She’s got the story, she’s got the character, and she has so much to contribute to the Marvel universe.

So, Mr. Esposito, give her a shot. Carol Danvers (along with all female viewers) has waited her turn, it’s time to give her moment. 

Superman vs. Batman: The Great Warner Bros/DC Comics Conundrum

If you were on Twitter on August 22nd, you probably saw the first few posts from Entertainment Weekly and Variety and the like announcing that Ben Affleck had been cast as Batman in Zach Snyder’s Man of Steel sequel. If this assumption is true (that you were on Twitter, keeping up with the latest tweets), then you probably saw the immediate (literally immediate – it was so instantaneous it seemed like the whole world was in on it and just hovering their finger over the ‘send’ key until it was announced) response and backlash. It was intense and seemed to obscure pretty much everything else. 

Since the announcement, a lot has been discussed on the topic, but I would like to add my two-sense simply because there’s a few points that I don’t feel have been adequately addressed. Whether Affleck will be a good Batman or not is essentially a moot point. What we must ask instead is why on earth does Affleck even have the chance to play Batman? Because Christian Bale was only signed on for three films with Christopher Nolan. Since both are out of the equation, DC and Warner Bros had to do some quick casting. This, my friends, is the problem. Warner Brothers are playing with the Marvel/Disney equation but they are already too far behind the starting line. Marvel had a vision for their film series – not a single film was produced that did not fit within their multi-phase, epic Superhero adventure. DC/Warner Bros. planned out the Batman series but is now trying to pick up the pieces to fit into a semblance of Marvel’s incredible structure. Though we’ve had multiple indicators all along suggesting their disorganization, this casting is like fitting a puzzle piece from a puppy puzzle set into a Van Gogh puzzle. It will never work both on the surface and internally. 

So the problem then arises: how do DC and Warner Bros. start over? By having to cast another actor as Batman, they are essentially admitting (on some level) their failure. It silently shares that their series concept was not as well-planned as their competitor and that to stay afloat they must re-brand with a new vision. This is not bad, and on some level, it is actually redemptive. Like in their comics, Batman and Superman get to try again. The issue lies further in our emotional appreciation of Batman’s narrative. It seems to be an almost universal truth that we will miss Christian Bale as Batman and Christopher Nolan as his director. The two created a Batman that reflected our times and our worries, giving us a fictional dark hero that provided an honest and strangely real level of support and protection. Warner Brothers claims that Affleck’s Batman will be “an entirely new incarnation of the character,” but Bale’s version still feels too fresh and too present in our collective cultural imagination. 

Superman and Batman are essentially the comic equivalent of Bonnie and Clyde, but DC and Warner Brothers needed to better evaluate the emotional ties to the Dark Knight Trilogy and perhaps waited on putting this famous duo back together on the big screen. I truly believe there is a time and place to explore their heroic stories but I don’t think it’s now. Snyder could have helped expand the DC Universe by bringing around a few characters we haven’t seen in a while. Where’s Wonder Woman (I think I ask this everyday)? Where’s Aquaman? Where’s Green Lantern (please, please, please do not say Ryan Reynolds)? Batman was not the answer. We do desperately need a re-imagined Superman that provides some sense of a hero in our 2013 psyche. And while Man of Steel delivered on very few aspects of this need, his ability’s don’t speak for the needs of our generation. He needs Batman to succeed today, but we’ve already committed ourselves to a different version of Batman. 

So what do we need to see a Superman and Batman film that satisfies all viewers? We need Snyder to re-boot his own series (yes, even after just one film). Man of Steel, though visually stunning, hit very few notes. It lacked an enduring and interesting storyline and saw Superman break his only rule, developing a new Superman that few were actually on board with. We need this Superman to find greater responsibility for the sake of his city and his people. We need him to find his partner in Batman not necessarily because they have similar skills but because they have similar goals. Snyder, DC, and Warner Brothers have an incredible task to deliver that could follow a myriad of different directions. The only way they can succeed is if they stay true to who these characters are and look to re-brand not with the intention of shock value and big box office but with characters that fans know and love. 

“I Have Faith in the Narrative,” or Why I Love Television and Film

The King of the Nerds, Joss Whedon, is featured in a fantastic Entertainment Weekly cover article this week. The story covers everything in the Whedon-verse, from Roseanne to Buffy to Firefly to Avengers: The Age of Ultron. I found Whedon’s comments on film and television as media and as narrative most interesting and revealing.

On confidence and narrative:

“But I believed that if somebody gave me the chance to tell a story I would tell a story [well enough] that the person who gave me the chance would get their money back. Somebody once asked me if I have anything like faith, and I said I have faith in the narrative. I have a belief in a narrative that is bigger than me, that is alive and I trust will work itself.”

This right here, my friends, sums up why Joss Whedon is the King of the Nerds. Comments like this and essentially everything he says in the article align with the core of fandoms and media love and obsession: we have faith in these narratives. To the Doctor Who or Sherlock or Teen Wolf fandoms, the show is truly much more than a show. Like Whedon states, the show is alive in a way that we might never be able to truly understand. It has heart, it has breath, and it has soul. It even feels sometimes like it loves us back.

Which brings me to my purpose for this post: why do I love television and film so much? What seems at first like a simple question and a simple answer is actually one that I consider constantly and find both a million answers and no truly definitive answer. My first reaction is because I just do.

My second and most honest answer is that television, films, books, and basically any story in any format allows me to live a million lives. The human condition limits us to one life, one story, one trajectory, one narrative. Our lives begin, we live them for the most part through limitations and boundaries and narrow paths, and then they end. We experienced that one life and we filled it as best we can. But as oral stories first told us many centuries ago, our imagination and interest is also captivated by the true and fictional stories of others. Through paintings and oral traditions and books, we found ourselves defying our own human limitation: we got to live and breathe in another narrative.

Film and television took that magical ability to a new level, permitting our visual senses to join the party and creating a more immersive experience. When I sit down in front of the TV and watch The Walking Dead or Star Wars, every part of my mind joins in on the action and the narrative. It’s not necessarily that I feel like I’m fighting the Dark side too (though some times I do feel that way and it’s the best feeling ever) but it’s far more subtle than that. It’s like I’m a fly-on-the-wall; I get to be a part of the action and feel everything as each character does but I do not have to be the one behind the wheel.

While most people seem to watch television and film in a similar manner, I think those of us that are truly fans and identify under monikers like “Whovians” and “Trekkies” find even more in the platform. We get more out of a program than another life: we get that life and we get lessons, values, and insights for our own being. We take these elements and then we do more than just identify and share in a character’s experience – we literally extend the world that we read about or see on the screen. We see every possibility for our main characters and instead of demanding more from writers and showrunners and studios (which we also do), we take it upon ourselves to create more. A program becomes infinite; we don’t just live in new lives with a new film or episode, we literally move in. We live on board the TARDIS, or Serenity, or the Enterprise and we set course for new planets and new universes where we imagine all new species and galaxies. We adopt Tatooine or Asgard as our own planet, and see their entire society and their enemies. We exist here on planet Earth, likely on our couch or streaming from Netflix, and we exist in this other place.

I watch TV and films because it allows me to live a better life: I get my own life, family, friends, job, and home but through these programs, I live in other planets or alternate universes, I travel all of space and time, and I get to step outside of human limitation. Most amazing of all, thanks to the internet and Tumblr and Twitter and the like, I get to share these experiences with people just like me. It seems silly (and somewhat unnecessary) to say but this extension of life and this viewing ability makes me happy. These stories and narratives fill my soul with a greater understanding of myself, my friends, and humans. These narratives make me better and they make our world better: they enrich us, entertain us, and ultimately teach us more about being human and being ourselves.

This is why I watch television and films; this is why I’m at the cinema on the first weekend of a film release and why I pay a ridiculous amount of money to get a million channels and why I countdown for a program release. Just like Joss, I put my faith in the narrative, and let me tell you, it is so worth it.

A Letter to Doctor Who’s Steven Moffat

Following the announcement of Peter Capaldi as the 12th Doctor, Doctor Who showrunner Steven Moffat commented on the possibility of Female Doctor or a Doctor of Color. He said:

“It’s absolutely narratively possible. And when it’s the right decision, maybe we’ll do it. But it didn’t feel right to me right now. I didn’t feel enough people wanted it. Oddly enough most people who said they were dead against it – and I know I’ll get in trouble for saying this – were women. They said ‘don’t make him a woman!’ Not that I was influenced by that. I’m influenced by nothing, obviously. What would I say to Helen Mirren? It’s time that a man played the Queen. Step aside for a man!”

I have tried a few times now to address his comments in a variety of ways, but I never really found a way to describe just why I’m bothered by this. This is all I got:

 

Dear Steven Moffat,

Like every Doctor Who fan on the planet, I was so excited for the 12th Doctor announcement. I tried to ignore most of the online guessing, preferring instead to discover this new Doctor in whatever method you and your team devised. See, I’m a fan of yours. I have truly loved the past three seasons and the stories that you’ve had to tell. The Doctor has never been better. His female companions, however, have had better times. While Amy, River, and Clara all have redeeming qualities, you have created three woman that are mostly “problems” for the Doctor to solve, and then once he has solved them, they have become tag-along women defined mostly by their men. Despite my objections to this, I still watch and I am still impressed by your narrative commitments over these three seasons. 

And so there I was, waiting with the rest of the world to see who you had in store for season eight. We were hoping that you would rise to the expectation of this era. We hoped that you would recognize your show for the social and cultural platform that it is and introduce a Doctor that we had not seen before. But instead, you let us down. While I’m a fan of Peter Capaldi’s and I think he will make a good Doctor, I was hoping at long last for a Doctor of color. I’ve written before about not wanting a female Doctor (mostly because, as I already alluded to, I don’t really trust you to write women) but I would have preferred that even to another white male Doctor. 

So we have another white male Doctor, and I think many of us could have gotten on with it, accepted it for what it was, and then just waited until the 13th Doctor. But then you had to ruin it. Following Capaldi’s announcement, you made comments that suggested that you never even considered about a female Doctor or a Doctor of Color. I think it was your comment that you are “influenced by nothing, obviously,” when deciding who the Doctor was. Mr. Moffat, I’m a twenty-something Latina who loves your show. I even made my friends drive me all the way to Cardiff just to go to the Doctor Who Experience. Does my opinion really matter so little? Do the opinions of so many fans and so many viewers who supported a different and progressive Doctor really mean so little to you?  

What really gets me about this comment is that you clearly do not understand the merits of a non-white, non-male Doctor. You address Helen Mirren’s comments about a female Doctor by saying that “It’s time that a man played the Queen. Step aside for a man!” It really saddens me to have to teach you this, but you have been quoted as saying “Step aside for a man” which is almost literally a woman’s worst nightmare, so here goes: women and people of color have been oppressed by white men for far too long. We live in an exciting era where we are finally starting to see some changes. Despite this, women and people of color must fight to achieve the success that white men just naturally expect. The past twenty years have been packed with incredible instances of progressive achievements, but we are not done. We look to build an even more diverse society along with an entertainment industry that reflects it to support and encourage everyone who lives in our society.  

I shouldn’t have to tell you what kind of platform you have. Being the showrunner of Doctor Who means that you have full creative control over the most iconic television show of all time. Men and women of all backgrounds and walks of life watch Doctor Who and look to the Doctor and The Doctor’s companion to reflect a part of their lives and entertain them. You had the opportunity to prove to your audience that you see the struggles of creating a multicultural society and demonstrate your support of these efforts by selecting a female Doctor or a Doctor of color. But instead you chose to bash even the very notion of this kind of Doctor, hurting your audience. 

 So, no, Mr. Moffat, Helen Mirren will not step aside for a man. I will not step aside for a man, and your audience will not step aside for a man. I really cannot put into words how disappointed I am in you, your comments, and your decision. Your comments make me question even watching the show. If you do not appreciate your audience and their opinions, why then should we appreciate you and your work? I’m hurt by your personal opinions and feelings on the matter, but I hoped that you would be able to put that aside for the interest of the show and the audience, let alone your responsibility as a showrunner. But you didn’t. You chose your selfish interest and outdated opinions instead of a conscious message to a progressive society. 

 I don’t really know what else I want to say to you. I hope you take the time to reflect on what you said following the 12th Doctor announcement and analyze what was so hurtful about it. I hope you question and challenge yourself as to why you said that in the first place and where those comments come from. I hope you take the time to re-evaluate your commitment and responsibility to your audience. Doctor Who fans deserve better.

– The Nerdy Girl

Women in Film: What Films like The Heat, The Hunger Games, and Zero Dark Thirty Should Be Telling Hollywood

In a recent BuzzFeed article entitled “Why The Success of ‘The Heat’ Doesn’t Mean Anything To Hollywood,” author Adam B. Vary details the discrepancies between male-driven and female-driven films. Vary asks “Are there fewer female-driven films because Hollywood is ignoring women, or because, on average, audiences are ignoring the female-driven films that are released?” I would like to add on a few more questions here: are these female-driven films actually targeting all women? and Is the industry really divided between male-driven and female-driven films?  

I agree with Vary that the film industry does produce an over-abundance of “male-centric” films (as compared to female-centric) but I don’t really like these terms ‘male-centric’ and ‘female-centric.’ Male-centric implies that a male-lead translates to a film targeted solely towards men, while ‘female-centric’ implies that a female-lead means a female audience. In some cases, a male-centric or male-lead film reaches a broader audience (ie, The Dark Knight) while most films that Vary or other entertainment columnists would describe as “female-centric” very rarely complete the same cross-over. Why do we continue to separate men’s and women’s films? The Dark Knight trilogy, Marvel films, The Help, Zero Dark Thirty, and even The Heat – why do these films get gendered? Why must film-makers and we as viewers continue to segregate films as though limited by a sex? Most would argue both for convenience sake while others would say that market research clearly indicates that women’s interests lie entirely in stereotypes and the film studios are simply trying to appease their interests. That is bullshit. I’ve done a lot of work in the research sector and I can tell you that you can skew the research to provide the data that you are looking for (I really hope this was not news for anyone reading this). 

Vary lays it all out: “Studios are reluctant to make female-centric movies because audiences are reluctant to race out to see female-centric movies because studios aren’t making enough good female-centric movies to attract attention away from the male-centric movies that are dominating the marketplace.” I don’t think it’s as simple as saying that there are not “enough good female-centric movies” to pull viewers away from the guy’s films because I don’t think that any film needs to “attract attention away from” another film. We live in the media-rich era where film-viewing is no longer a “one film versus another” scenario. If the industry still views it this way then they are out-of-date. A film-goer can see one film one day and see another the next or a month later. They can watch it on-demand or they can even pirate it online (God forbid!). If they want to view it, they can access any film almost anywhere. 

Women know this better than anyone and we are not fickle when it comes to film-viewing; we will pay whatever price to see what we want to see. Vary does have a point when he says that the “studios aren’t making enough good female-centric movies.” Lord knows that I would love to see more female-lead films, but only if the content is good. I suppose that is the whole-problem with both films in general (but I’m not here to ponder why terrible films earn serious money) but more specifically in female-centric films. This industry seems to view women as having few industries (apparently this is what the “research” suggests). We like weddings (Bridesmaids – a fantastic film but still latching on to ‘women’s interests’), domestic life and pregnancy (What to Expect When You’re Expecting), cooking (Julie & Julia), and some more marriage and family (The Proposal). While some of these films are enjoyable, they rarely appeal to men and they never even seem to try appealing to men. These films rely on women to drive other women, while most “man-centric” (I see why Vary and others use this term, it is really the only useful descriptor) films do not have to use their male cast as their only selling point for other men. We ladies are not looking for films that solely satisfy our interests; like all film-goers, we are looking for a film that satisfies an interest. That interest will likely be a shared interest between men and women. We are also looking to see ladies like ourselves on that big screen: progressive and intelligent women with genuine character and soul. Does it really seem this difficult to meet these conditions?

I guess what I’m trying to say is that men’s films are NOT ‘men’s films.’ They are called films. Whereas women’s films are ALWAYS women’s films. Take, for example, The Fast and Furious series. Those are as man-centric (or as man-centric as the research allows) as can be: dull, troublesome men, ridiculous cars, women in little to no clothing with no character traits whatsoever, and a lot of guns and money. So, these are obviously man-centric yet I’ve never heard of these films described as such. They are just films, new releases, coming attractions; the vagueness suggests that they are for everyone. But The Heat, despite being a film about dull, troublesome women, ridiculous cars, guns, and money (from what I’ve heard, no women in little to no clothing, thank God) will never be considered as anything but a women’s film. 

 I don’t really know how to conclude this post. I write about these things because I continue to see them happen and it hurts every time. We continue time and time again to see sexist limitations in film and television and yet nothing changes. What does it take for these things to finally change? All the signs are there (kick-ass women (Katniss Everdeen), a compelling story (Zero Dark Thirty), and some fierce actresses (Jessica Chastain, Jennifer Lawrence, Zoe Saldana, Scarlett Johansson, Kristen Wiig, etc.)) but apparently studio heads can’t add up these successful elements to provide for more women-friendly (or female-centric, I give in) features. Do you think Hollywood will take note of films like The Heat or Bridesmaids or Zero Dark Thirty? What must we do to see women succeed in every aspect of the entertainment industry?

Why The Twelfth Doctor Shouldn’t be a Woman (From a Feminist)

When the BBC announced that Matt Smith was leaving Doctor Who this year following the Christmas special, I was at an all-day music festival. It was raining so my friends and I retreated to our apartment to wait out the storm. I checked twitter and lo and behold, Smith’s departure was everywhere. Reflecting on this now, I’m still surprised by my reaction because it was both intrinsic and insane. I freaked out. I terrified my friends (they thought someone had died) and all I could do was pace around the room. In this next hour, news sites continued to announce the Eleventh Doctor’s news and I continued to be mopey and already missed Eleven. In the next hour, it began: who will be the Twelfth Doctor?

(A brief aside before I continue: Could we possibly have had a few more minutes to miss Mr. Smith before everyone started talking about who would follow in his shoes? His own announcement and what it entailed disrupted his own departure. As an avid Doctor Who fan (I still feel weird calling myself a Whovian, but that is for another post), I am curious to see who Eleven will regenerate into come Christmas Day, but part of me only wants to discover that on Christmas Day. Let it be mystery, and until then, let us say good-bye to Eleven.)

Many bloggers, critics, entertainment columnists and the like began compiling lists of who they wanted for Twelve. Many famous names were suggested, many not-so-famous names were suggested, but many suggested that a woman take over the role. Helen Mirren even argued that she’s “so sick of that man with his girl sidekick. I could name at least ten wonderful British actresses who would absolutely kill in that role.” Now, I can’t believe I’m going to disagree with Dame Helen Mirren, but I’m going to disagree with Dame Helen Mirren. I’m tired of The Doctor and his female companion too, but that’s because I’m tired of the way it has been written. Since the Ninth Doctor told Rose Tyler to “RUN” in the 2005 reboot, each companion has mostly served as a romantic interest (with Donna Noble as the lone exception). Even Amy Pond, future mother-in-law to Eleven, spent most of the fifth series confused and wanting The Doctor. Dame Helen, I’m tired of this easy romantic plot too, but I do not think that a female Doctor is the way to do it.

There’s the feminist side of me who loves to see women achieve equal status and more than a man. I love to see a woman take on a man’s role; Lucy Liu, for example, kills it as Joan Watson, the now-female companion to Jonny Lee Miller’s Sherlock Holmes in CBS’s Elementary. But as a Doctor Who fan, I have to disagree in this one case. In Elementary’s case, Miss Watson worked because it was an American re-boot of a popular story where she was always and will always be female in this version of Holmes’ world. We do not have the same framework in Doctor Who. Yes, The Doctor regenerates, but the show does not start over. His past regenerations are all a part of him and his past, and while aspects of him change in each regeneration, The Doctor at his core remains unchanged. At his core, the Doctor is a man. He was born a man, he has regenerated time and time again into a man, and he should stay a man.

Many argue that history and tradition in Who means we must have a white male in the role. Screw history and tradition. White male privilege has played little to no role in history or tradition on this show. I’m talking now about character. As a character, the Doctor is male; it’s a constant between all his regenerations and is central to every decision he makes and how he operates. Perhaps this is taking this too seriously, but I have a hard time with those who think his regeneration could lead to a simple gender swap. Going from man to woman has repercussions for an individual, and even The Doctor cannot avoid that. If the show were will to explore these repercussions and what this means for the Twelfth Doctor, then I would be all for a female Doctor. But I know that the show will not commit in this way. I’m also not comfortable with a female Doctor because I do not trust Steven Moffat or any of the other writers to create a female Twelve. In his past three seasons as showrunner, Moffat has given us incredible stories but he has created women like Amy Pond, who is always followed around by her husband/baby-sitter, Rory, who must give her “permission” to hug other men; Clara Oswald, the new half-written companion who is mostly just sassy and wants to be with Eleven; and River Song, the badass half-Time Lord who starts out as an ass-kicker but has mostly come to be defined by her marriage to the Doctor. I don’t really want to see Moffat’s female Doctor. I can already imagine all the body jokes, the women jokes. Perhaps I could even handle Moffat’s female Doctor if there was a least one female writer on his team, but there has not been a female writer since Helen Raynor in Series Four. If The Doctor is going to be a woman, can’t we at least see some women write her? I’m tired of watching Doctor Who’s women come from the minds of men, I want to see a woman written by a woman.

With all this said, I absolutely support a man of color in the role. Jennifer Ouellette argues for a female Doctor because “It’s a perspective on history he hasn’t experienced yet: that of being the “other” in, shall we say, a less than enlightened time. It changes everything: where he can go, what behavior is appropriate, how others respond to him (both intellectually and sexually).” As I’ve already explained, I don’t agree with this logic in terms of a female Doctor, but her argument still aligns with a Black, Latino, or Muslim Doctor. As a Man of Color, The Doctor will get to experience more than just a new body, he will get to experience the way many of male AND female viewers experience the world.

And then, of course, some might say “why does any of this matter? It’s just a show.” It’s a show, but it is one of the most iconic and famous British television shows of all time. To say that this is just a show is to deny the power of television and media in our society. This matters because we need to see more women in television and in important roles. But I hope that we see this more in roles like John Watson’s transformation into Joan Watson and in more leading roles like Sarah Jane in The Sarah Jane Adventures or Eve Myles in Torchwood. We ladies will take over television, but let’s not rely on characters that already belong to men. We don’t need those roles, we can make our own just fine, thank you very much.

-The Nerdy Girl

The Sexist Star Trek? The Problems with Uhura, Carol Marcus, and the Absence of Strong Women

Like most nerds, I saw Star Trek Into Darkness the very first moment that I could. So there I was, Friday evening, ready to take in the glorious Abrams production and revel in the wonder of the Enterprise. It was rather marvelous in most regards, but I was not expecting, however, to spend two hours with almost exclusively male actors dominating the scenes, the dialogue, and the action. I was amazed to see the once bad-ass Uhura (Zoe Saldana) transformed into a weak and meek girlfriend. Felicia Day writes that Uhura serves “as a vehicle to humanize Spock” but she does even less than that; in her role as girlfriend, she stands behind Spock (Zachary Quinto), and in her role as linguist, she serves as a man’s speaking device and little more. In the 2009 original film, Uhura was awesome: she was strong, fierce, confident, and more capable than any of the guys. Here, she’s nothing more than a man’s prop, used for her mouth and her voice only.

Uhura’s weakness is nothing compared to that of Carol Marcus (Alice Eve). Marcus is literally a throw-away woman with no substance, character, and purpose. She exists to please the womanizing Captain Kirk and, of course, the woman-hungry male audience. While I don’t condone this (this actually infuriates me), I prefer it to the smart girl disguise that Abrams and his films present this in. Marcus is presented as a Feminist-Trekkie’s dream: a smart, bad-ass chick who’s brilliance earns her a spot on the Enterprise. But she doesn’t have a spot on the Enterprise. Marcus (the daughter of the film’s actual villain) sneaks her way on to the Enterprise because she doesn’t apparently deserve, warrant, or earn a real spot aboard the famed vessel. She only uses her brain when instructed by Kirk, Bones, or Spock – she never actually gets to utilize her supposed intelligence in her own right.

Then, of course, there is the now infamous bra and undies moment. Carol Marcus has just revealed her true identity to the clearly-interested Captain Kirk. She takes him to her quarters to prepare for the torpedo inspection, which for some reason necessitates her to change. She tells Kirk not to look (because apparently he needs to be present in the room while she changes) and, because he’s Kirk, he looks. We then see Marcus in her bra and underwear from a figure-flattering angle. This moment is sexist and pointless; there is absolutely no use for this moment and its very inclusion suggests that Abrams and his editors deliberately kept it to appeal to the horny theatre viewers (and since it has been included in nearly every TV spot and trailer, this should be extended to every horny commercial/TV viewer). It is such a dumb ploy for idiotic views that it literally cheapens the entire film.

What’s worse is that J.J. Abrams responded to all the backlash about his sexist work on Conan. He tells Conan that he included this moment because “it was a sort of balance. There’s a scene earlier where he’s (Kirk) not dressed either, so I thought it was a trade-off.” He then shows a clip from a deleted scene that features the villainous John Harrison/Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch) showering.

The very idea that Abrams thinks this explanation should satisfy the nay-sayers is beyond insulting and just wrong. This comment suggests that Abrams has no understanding of sexism’s history. A shot of a shirtless Chris Pine and nearly naked Alice Eve will never “even out” because they will never be viewed in an equal light. Women or men that look at shirtless Pine will never ogle him the way horny people will stare at Eve. She is a piece of meat, up for the taking by every audience member that so chooses to take it, while Pine is just a hunk (also to be noted, this shirtless Pine moment occurs just after Kirk has enjoyed a threesome with two naked alien women). Abrams then cues up the Cumberbatch clip. Yes, this clip is sexy and definitely meant to get some women going, but his point his rendered useless when he admits that the clip was deleted. This scene did not make the final cut of the film yet Eve’s did. The men didn’t need to be objectified in order for the film to succeed, but the women did.

This leads me to another recently undressed woman, but this one has not received as much attention as I would have expected. In Iron Man 3, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) is kidnapped by Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) and then forced to undergo his evil (and rather supernatural) transformative process. We find Potts waking from the final effects of the process strapped to a horrific metal device, wearing nothing on top but a bra. She continues to wear this bra throughout the final epic battle scene. Not only is this unsafe (see my last post, por favor) but its again cloaked under a disguise of her brilliance and sheer power. Like Eve’s undressing, Potts’s bra is depicted to empower her for the feminist-viewing sake, but it’s not. They are de-clothed by men for the purpose of men’s interests and pursuits. Iron Man 3 presents Pott’s half-nakedness as though its her choice and her empowerment, but she’s de-robed twice in the film by men. Tony Stark (RDJ) de-robes her when he decides it’s his time to defend her, literally removing the Iron Man suit from her body and placing it on his own. Killian then de-robes her when he induces her with his creepy process.

So, I ask, where are the strong women in action films? Why do filmmakers like Abrams and Shane Black pretend that they have these strong women in their films when they have systematically developed weak women who are used more as men’s toys and props than as capable female characters? Why are there no strong women who are truly empowered by their own needs and desires tearing up the summer box office? Along with Uhura, Carol Marcus, and Pepper Potts, we have the great literary character but also possibly the weakest, meekest, most tragic Daisy Buchanan in Baz Luhrman’s dizzying and disastrous 3D Great Gatsby. Besides Daisy, we’ve got the nameless sexy nobodies in the one millionth installation of Fast and Furious, the strippers and nagging wives in The Hangover, and some more nameless boobs and asses in the latest Mark Wahlberg muscles and guns flick.

Where are the strong ladies in Star Trek, in Superhero movies, and in the movies in general? Why are we being depicted as nothing more than our bodies and some brains, when convenient for the men (of course)? There is not a single woman on the big screen right now holding down even a remotely Feminist front. So why not? I know even asking this question what the big studio response could be: strong women are not profitable, there’s no audience for it, yadda yadda yadda. But I ask: how on earth do they know that? One of the largest films of 2012 featured a strong Feminist woman that was both profitable and is raking up hits on Netflix and in DVD sales (Hunger Games). Why is Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) alone in the cinema? I don’t know the answer to this, but I know that the answer is more obvious than we think. Studios want money, and through the years, men have guaranteed them money. But as the Hunger Games proves, that equation does not mean that women cannot make the same money. Now let’s get some strong women on that big screen.

– The Nerdy Girl

Iron Man 3’s Most Beautiful Review

It’s finally here! Iron Man 3 is finally in theaters! 

Just wanted to put this on the radar – Wired’s Laura Hudson and Jim Rugg decided to take a different take on their Iron Man 3 review. The two wrote and illustrated a comic book reaction to the film. Take a look at their beautiful and brilliant work:

 

 

Empowered or Sexy: The Superheroine Costume Complex

I remember when I first saw Wonder Woman. I was probably five or six and I thought to myself, “Wow, I’ve never seen a woman like that.” I wasn’t talking about her superpowers and strength. I was talking about her body. Wonder Woman was ripped, muscles streaming with no wind or movement; despite being an Amazonian, she was still a head shorter than Superman and all other men. Her boobs were enormous, her butt equally as robust and detailed. This was noticeable and meant to gain attention due to her costume, or rather lack thereof. I remember thinking “where’s her clothes?” Even at a young age, I couldn’t understand why she was dressed in such a way to fight crime. 

Even years later, I still ask myself “where’s her clothes?” Let’s break this down:

Wonder Woman, Catwoman, Elektra, etc are all involved in rigorous and dangerous fighting. This outfit is just not sensible for such behavior! Ironman, Batman, Thor, etc are covered from head-to-toe for ultimate body protection The women’s barely-there costumes suggest a level of stupidity, a lack of concern for one’s own safety. It’s like Selina Kyle prefers sexiness to survival. It also suggests that woman cannot and are not meant to fight the way that the Marvel men do. Ms. Marvel’s uniform suggests that she does not fight the same way Captain America does and thus does not need the appropriate costume. 

But, of course, what this boils down to is the men that create these characters. They are MALE comic artists who look to gain more male audiences rather than developing a valued and honest female character. Superman/Clark and Batman/Bruce not only get to save the world in their flashy, fully-covered best, they also get to be incredibly complex people who’s appearance is based on their established, dimensional persona. The Wonder Woman we read on the pages would never wear something so impractical. But that doesn’t matter when she’s meant to be hot and sexy rather than an effective, strong, and empowered fighter. 

This leads to my real point: artist Michael Lee Lunsford recently drew some of the world’s favorite comic heroines in appropriate attire. The results:

Wonder Woman:

Supergirl:

 

Elektra:

These are beautiful costumes fit for any superheroine. Why don’t we see this in comic books and now the film adaptations? Why don’t we press for this? There are so many WOMEN reading comic books – why don’t we demand to see real, incredible women dressed for more than just the male gaze? Ladies, let’s be real: these male artists are going to continue to publish these sexist costumes until we demand otherwise. How do we do this? We don’t purchase their comics, we don’t provide hits on their website, we abandon the universe until they get the message. 

That, or we can be outright about what we want: I want Wonder Woman to be dressed appropriately for the sort of battle she’s going into. I want Elektra and Black Widow and Ms. Marvel and everyone else to look prepared for the strength and fight they’re capable of. Is that really so much to ask?

Sherlock Season 3 Premiere Date

Rumor has it, Sherlock season 3 will return to BBC One on November 24th. Commence countdowns NOW.

Full post coming soon, so sorry I’ve been MIA!

– Nerdy Girl