Woman don’t need superheros? Oh, it’s on now, bub

CinemaBlend’s Josh Tyler says we don’t need any more female superheroes, because women would rather have Julia Roberts and Sex and the City. Of course we do, darling. Of course we do. That’s why Buffy the Vampire Slayer never made it past being a mid-season replacement. To quoth Jezebel’s Dodai:

There’s nothing sexist about wanting a female superhero; there is something sexist in assuming that all women only want to see Sex And The City-type movies, that women are a monolithic block who all act the same way and want the same things.

Yes, we do need more films aimed towards us. And while it was great to see a ‘woman’s movie’ like Sex and the City become a genuine box office hit this summer, that’s not all there is. Diversify, already. Stop blaming Catwoman and Elektra – their sin was being bad movies, not about the ladies. Put as much care into a Wonder Woman as you put into an Iron Man or Batman Begins and you might get a good movie – or at least one that makes money.

The only thing wrong with female superhero movies is that they’re making damsel-in-distress crap like Twilight instead. Leia would not approve.

11 Replies to “Woman don’t need superheros? Oh, it’s on now, bub”

  1. The only thing wrong with female superhero movies is that they’re making damsel-in-distress crap like Twilight instead. Leia would not approve.

    What is your isssue with Twilight?

  2. Much of the reason why Catwoman and Elektra tanked is precisely because they tried to make it for “guys” to enjoy. Lots of skin. Lots of beating up of people. Not much story.

    The man has a point that the primary audience for superhero movies is male. But maybe that’s because there hasn’t been anything for women to latch onto.

    Why can’t a superhero movie have both the superhero action and the emotional story? I would argue that the mega-blockbusters (Star Wars, Matrix, Iron Man, etc.) are blockbusters because they had character development and an emotional heart that both men and women can relate to.

    And the success of Buffy or Xena or even the female Starbuck on TV is precisely because these women take care of themselves, but still have heart behind their actions. It’s a lesson that the film industry needs to learn.

    (And I enjoyed Twilight, but she is a damsel-in-distress; for the most part. A smart one. Very independent. But still a damsel.)

  3. I was just reading this over at Jezebel, and Tyler’s article made me spitting mad. Never even mind the whole “superhero” angle; that just narrows the field of the general argument. Give us strong women who are their own people, who are an active force in the story, and who aren’t relegated to being sidekicks and love interests. Whether those women come in the superhero mold of Wonder Woman and Catwoman or the more general strong woman mold of Leia Organa and Zoe Washburn hardly matters. Not all women are sitting around pining for Julia Roberts and Sex and the City-type movies. A lot of us would very happily go see movies with stronger female characters. The problem is that few such projects make it past the old boys’ network of Hollywood, and of those that do, few are actually well made.

    But it would seem that as far as Tyler’s concerned, asking for such things is only buying into sexist mores and to be truly liberated, we need to daydream about “finding the right guy and dancing till dawn” and embrace our (to his way of thinking) universal love of romcoms. Because that will validate women’s interests.

    Thanks, dude. Really. I feel more validated already.

  4. Oh, but according to Josh, Buffy doesn’t count because it’s a “vampire show,” not a “superhero show.” Can my eyes roll so hard that they roll out of their sockets? Because they’re trying to. I love how he condescends to “correct” the commenter who studies fan behavior for a living, asks her where she got her data, then conveniently neglecting to provide a source for his own other than “common sense wisdom.”

  5. Someone needs to crawl out of the DC ghetto and realize “superhero” != “DC stuff plus some guy named spider-man.

    Honestly, though, while I’d buy “Elektra” on discount to go with my copy of “Daredevil” I honestly dont’ want movies about female superheros. I want movies about Hugh Jackman in black leather kicking ass. I don’t want to look at Halle Berry in a catsuit.

    Miranda: my problem with Twilight is the protagonist is a codependent Mary Sue who basically wants to be an apendage of her boyfriend. She’s such a totally unattractive klutz–that she has three boys on her first day of school falling over themselves to ask her out. She’s so passive that the big finale of the first book is told after the fact because she misses it. Plus of all the vampire characters Edward is the single least interesting. He’s basically there as a pretty boy for Bella. A book about Carlisle or Alice would be infinitely more entertaining.

    “Twilight” is not a sterling example of a remotely healthy relationship, let alone of how strong protagonists behave. I haven’t seen the movie yet but I understand it’s helped by the lead actors thinking the source material isn’t all that great, either and acting accordingly.

  6. Miranda: What is your isssue with Twilight?

    I did enjoy it on the lulz-level, but I find its popularity very disturbing. I’m not saying Bella should be Buffy, but the ‘romance’ is just plain creepy on a lot of levels. Which wouldn’t be a problem if everyone dealing with the things in an unironic manner actually acknowledged that part (Buffy/Angel/Angelous would be the heavyhanded version) but they don’t. It’s all ‘Oh, Edward, take me away!’

  7. So if I find Sex and the City-type shows tedious and prefer superher0ine-type shows instead, does that mean I’m not really a woman? Or have I just been brainwashed by… no, I can’t even follow that twisted “reasoning.”

  8. I wonder if this jerk has a screen name like “ignorant pig”, because that is just what he is.

    “Buffy never making it past being a mid-season replacement.” Indeed.

Comments are closed.