| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why does Wolverine's hair go up in those points?
Because it's visually intriguing, but not particularly distracting. In addition, I've always thought it gives him a bit of a "rough" look.
Colonel Fury's eyepatch, mostly just a visual detail and style thing
Bingo.
If there's a reason, super. But if it's clearly being done to make a point, it threatens to damage the viewer's suspension of disbelief.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many of my interactions with people who have a problem with "social justice" end up complaining about "censorship" and "reverse racism" and feminism ruining discussions. So, they clearly believe privilege exists, they just think that women, minorities, people with disabilities etc. have too much of it, and white, heterosexual males have too little.
To be completely fair, I have long felt that (as a white guy myself), if I were successfully to defend myself against a mugger, having that mugger be black (or some other minority) would make me worry that I'd go to jail for a hate crime. It's just that over time I've come to decide that those sorts of injustices against majority groups are less of a priority than the injustices against minority groups.
That means that the kinds of people talked about in the above quotation could easily be people who have legitimate concerns but just suffer from a lack of perspective. Educating them should be about granting that perspective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously, I know what the Bechdel Test is. It's the question of whether two women at any point in the story have a conversation that doesn't involve a man.
Failing the test does not mean the women of a movie do not have an existence apart from how they relate to men. You're exaggerating there. It just means that particular conversation doesn't happen. The women of the movie (or book, or comic, or what-have-you) can still be strong, independent characters. But maybe they're in a "man's world" like piracy or war where there are more men than women. Maybe there aren't many characters at all. Maybe the female characters are closer bonded to other male characters than other female characters (because, y'know, they aren't obliged to form sisterly bonds or the like). Or maybe they just happen to not have that conversation because the writer was busy telling a story instead of worrying about some aggressive comic's idea of feminism. There are tons of possible reasons.
A story that fails the Bechdel Test is just that, and nothing more. I named it as one example of many, so I'm not sure why you're bringing race, religion, sexuality and nationality up as if I implied it related to any of them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think the Bechdel test is very useful for content creators to check their own range, though. If no story you've ever written passes the Bechdel test, it's time to re-examine.
I quite like the Bechdel Test (though my remark about its source still stands—the original comic was pretty hostile towards movies that don't "pass"). It's something I check for regularly in my stories. Sometimes I pass, sometimes I don't. 's all good.
For instance, in my current main idea, I've got five female named characters (pretty good, considering there's five named male characters). Let's go one-by-one. One of them is a part of a purely platonic mercenary duo with a guy, so she "fails" the test. One is an Ahab-like character determined to take down the main (male) villain, and it later turns out they used to be in a relationship, so she "fails" pretty hard. One is the main character, and it's a romance, so I'm expecting her to "fail"—or at least come very close. The story should ultimately "pass" with the last two, a couple eccentric forest women who try and help out the heroes.
That said, the mercenary and the MC are intended to be quite independent and willful—arguably moreso than the forest women, in fact, who are extremely dependent on each other. I resent the implication that any female character who doesn't have the Conversation is somehow less independent or well-rounded than a female character who does.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jeff hit the nail on the head, I think. Not every movie needs to have a black actor, or even pass the Bechdel Test. For instance, I wouldn't expect a straight romance to pass the Bechdel Test (you're kind of focusing on a romance, after all), and I wouldn't expect a martial arts movie set in medieval China to include Jews.
Do you know what the Bechdel Test is? It's quite simple, it's a test whether or not the women of a movie have an existence apart from how they relate to men. It's not much... it's a question whether or not there is a SINGLE scene in a movie where two women talk to each other, and it's not about a man.
There's no race requirement.
There's no nationality requirement.
There's no atheism or religion requirement.
There isn't even a non-cis requirement. A movie can have characters that are nothing but straight whites and still pass the Test. It just requires one scene where two women talk about something other then a man.
Furthermore a movie isn't necessarily "bad" if it passes the test, nor is it guranteed to be progressive if it does. A movie can still be exploitative, prejudiced, and chauvinistic while passing the Bechdel test, The test is nothing more than a test for one specific element in a movie. It takes the rest of the movie to sink or swim as something worthwhile to watch.
The rarity of passing the Bechdel Test and the rarity of failing the male equivalent is the commentary, not the result for an individual movie. While KC's point about romances being reasonable places to fail is true, the men will typically have a conversation with their boss about deadlines or TPS reports or something. The women either won't or they'll be talking to male coworkers.
Edit: Also, to give a good example of the test not working on an individual movie scale: Gravity. I don't think anybody is claiming Sandra Bullock's character exists only as an accessory to the men of the story. To give an general example of it not working in the opposite direction: "adult" movies. I'm not an expert, but I think the ladies sometimes talk about things before the "action" starts.
Edit: massively ninja'd.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I quite like the Bechdel Test (though my remark about its source still stands—the original comic was pretty hostile towards movies that don't "pass"). It's something I check for regularly in my stories. Sometimes I pass, sometimes I don't. 's all good.
I was about to ponder aloud the likelihood of Pathfinder campaigns passing the Bechdel test, but then it occurred to me that it would depend almost entirely on the PCs, since you never really see a scene without them. Hrm.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be clear, the discussion that I've been having has largely been about people who have a problem with "social justice warriors," rather than the concept of social justice itself.
Social justice is, broadly speaking, correct. And so Social Justice Warriors are, broadly speaking, on the right side. IF you have a problem with someone on the social justice side being a jerk, don't complain about social justice, complain about someone being a jerk.
"I'm sorry, I can't support your movement to benefit all mankind, someone on the Internet called me a mean name."
Reposting, since my edit got pretty buried.
For instance, in my current story idea, I've got five female named characters (and five named male characters). One of them is a part of a purely platonic mercenary duo with a guy, so she "fails" the test. One is an Ahab-like character determined to take down the main (male) villain, and it later turns out they used to be in a relationship, so she "fails" pretty hard. One is the main character, and it's a romance, so I'm expecting her to "fail"—or at least come very close. The story should ultimately "pass" with the last two, a couple forest women who try and help out the heroes.
That said, the mercenary and the MC are intended to be quite independent and willful—arguably moreso than the forest women, in fact, who are extremely dependent on each other. I resent the implication that any female character who doesn't have the Conversation is somehow less independent or well-rounded than a female character who does.
Social justice is, broadly speaking, correct. And so Social Justice Warriors are, broadly speaking, on the right side.
Which is why tarring and feathering British loyalists was a-okay!
Once again, we're simplifying the complex issue of Social Justice. No, no, no. Social Justice bullies are not "on the right side", and extreme policies like "no urinals" are not, either. They aren't on any side. People implying they are hurt social justice almost as much as people like the MRA.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are examples of cases on that side. Is there a single example you can name of a white guy even claiming he was mugged going to jail for a hate crime?
If your response to challenge the provability of that one specific off-the-cuff example, then you have no idea what I'm talking about.
For instance, in my current main idea, I've got five female named characters (pretty good, considering there's five named male characters). Let's go one-by-one. One of them is a part of a purely platonic mercenary duo with a guy, so she "fails" the test. One is an Ahab-like character determined to take down the main (male) villain, and it later turns out they used to be in a relationship, so she "fails" pretty hard. One is the main character, and it's a romance, so I'm expecting her to "fail"—or at least come very close. The story should ultimately "pass" with the last two, a couple eccentric forest women who try and help out the heroes.
Well, I think this is an issue just because any character that can be reduced to a one-sentence description is pretty cardboard. The way you described the Ahab-like character, she literally does have no "existence apart from how [she] relate[s] to men," or at least to that particular man. Similarly, while I grant that the main character is entitled to some romance, does she do nothing else over the entire story? If that's the case, then, yes, she has no independent existence beyond her romantic entanglement.
There are basically three ways I can see this group "failing" the Bechdel test.
* First, the three groups never interact with each other.
* Second, when they do interact, the men do all the talking
* Three, they never talk about anything except the men.
None of those strike me as characteristics of independent, well-rounded characters.
Reposting, since my edit got pretty buried.
For instance, in my current story idea, I've got five female named characters (and five named male characters). One of them is a part of a purely platonic mercenary duo with a guy, so she "fails" the test. One is an Ahab-like character determined to take down the main (male) villain, and it later turns out they used to be in a relationship, so she "fails" pretty hard. One is the main character, and it's a romance, so I'm expecting her to "fail"—or at least come very close. The story should ultimately "pass" with the last two, a couple forest women who try and help out the heroes.
That said, the mercenary and the MC are intended to be quite independent and willful—arguably moreso than the forest women, in fact, who are extremely dependent on each other. I resent the implication that any female character who doesn't have the Conversation is somehow less independent or well-rounded than a female character who does.
That's not the test. Whether they're in relationships (platonic or otherwise) is irrelevant.
Do two of the named female characters talk to each other about something other than a guy.
That's all. They can talk about anything they want. It can even be stereotypical female stuff. As long as it's not about a guy. If they chat about battle tactics or about the other female characters or complement each other's lipstick, it doesn't matter. It passes.
Uh, when did I say otherwise? I'm a bit confused now.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reposting, since my edit got pretty buried.
For instance, in my current story idea, I've got five female named characters (and five named male characters). One of them is a part of a purely platonic mercenary duo with a guy, so she "fails" the test. One is an Ahab-like character determined to take down the main (male) villain, and it later turns out they used to be in a relationship, so she "fails" pretty hard. One is the main character, and it's a romance, so I'm expecting her to "fail"—or at least come very close. The story should ultimately "pass" with the last two, a couple forest women who try and help out the heroes.
That said, the mercenary and the MC are intended to be quite independent and willful—arguably moreso than the forest women, in fact, who are extremely dependent on each other. I resent the implication that any female character who doesn't have the Conversation is somehow less independent or well-rounded than a female character who does.
That's not the test. Whether they're in relationships (platonic or otherwise) is irrelevant.
Do two of the named female characters talk to each other about something other than a guy.
That's all. They can talk about anything they want. It can even be stereotypical female stuff. As long as it's not about a guy. If they chat about battle tactics or about the other female characters or complement each other's lipstick, it doesn't matter. It passes.
He didn't say they were passing or failing based on those relationships, he was using those relationships to predict whether they might pass or fail. The one who is constantly in a working relationship with a man is likely to have most of her (visible to the audience) conversations either with or about that man. The one who's chasing a man is likely to have most of her conversations about that man. And so forth.
Probably. It was a speculative prediction about an as-yet unwritten story.
I quite like the Bechdel Test (though my remark about its source still stands—the original comic was pretty hostile towards movies that don't "pass"). It's something I check for regularly in my stories. Sometimes I pass, sometimes I don't. 's all good.I was about to ponder aloud the likelihood of Pathfinder campaigns passing the Bechdel test, but then it occurred to me that it would depend almost entirely on the PCs, since you never really see a scene without them. Hrm.
Indeed. I think that kind of exemplifies the best interpretation of the test. Any (female) NPC isn't a real person as much as the (male?) PCs are. If that's because they're women, that might be a problem. If it's because of something else and they happen to be women, that's fine.
It can be hard to tell which is which in isolated examples.
Orf, I don't think you really understand writing if you think "being able to reduce to a sentence = cardboard". I explained solely what was relevant to the discussion so people wouldn't think I was just after an excuse to talk about my script.
The story is a romance. Therefore, the primary focus of both the main characters is the romance. There is also the matter of two warring cities, but because the two leads don't have many friends aside from each other and a couple of (male) lieutenants , they don't have many people to talk it out with. That said, I did say the FMC might end up passing during a conversation with the forest women, who serve as something of surrogate parents to her.
The mercenaries are hired to harass the heroes. As adversaries, they aren't especially chatty (in fact, they want to avoid being noticed by the heroes at all). The female of the duo actually does almost all of the talking, being the brains of the pair, but most of her talking is arguing with either or partner or the Big Bad who hired them in the first place.
Finally, the Ahab-like character is intended to be a weak character. She is one of the primary antagonists. Both she and the main villain are obsessed with defeating each other, though the main villain is a more sinister character in general. This is a story about responsibility, and almost every character demonstrates some way of failing to take responsibility. Hers is failing to move past her grudge against an emotionally abusive jackass.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I quite like the Bechdel Test (though my remark about its source still stands—the original comic was pretty hostile towards movies that don't "pass"). It's something I check for regularly in my stories. Sometimes I pass, sometimes I don't. 's all good.I was about to ponder aloud the likelihood of Pathfinder campaigns passing the Bechdel test, but then it occurred to me that it would depend almost entirely on the PCs, since you never really see a scene without them. Hrm.Indeed. I think that kind of exemplifies the best interpretation of the test. Any (female) NPC isn't a real person as much as the (male?) PCs are. If that's because they're women, that might be a problem. If it's because of something else and they happen to be women, that's fine.
It can be hard to tell which is which in isolated examples.
More what I was meaning was that in an RPG, the "audience" doesn't sit around watching two NPCs have a conversation; every conversation involves at least one PC (it's either PC-to-PC, or PC-to-NPC). That means that even if the entire NPC cast of a full, 20-level Adventure Path was 100% female, you'd still be entirely dependent on the genders of the PCs to determine a pass or fail. Conversely, the same 20-level AP could have a 100% all-male cast, but then still pass if two PCs are female and at some point talk to each other.
So maybe the Bechdel Test doesn't really work for TTRPGs. (CRPGs can be different, because cutscenes.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing that a work passing or the Bechdel test tells you about is whether or that work passes or fails the Bechdel test. Outside of that tautology, it completely useless for anything.
No, it's not. It's very useful to gauge the relevance of female characters within a show, or genre, or industry.
It's not just very useful when made just a single time.
Pick 30 random fantasy movies and make the test.
Pick 30 random sci-fi movies and make the test.
Based on the result, if there's a relevant difference you can definately use that as a quick measure for female representation within the genre.
Or something like this: Bechdel test of Dr Who (2005-2013)
He didn't say they were passing or failing based on those relationships, he was using those relationships to predict whether they might pass or fail. The one who is constantly in a working relationship with a man is likely to have most of her (visible to the audience) conversations either with or about that man. The one who's chasing a man is likely to have most of her conversations about that man. And so forth.
Probably. It was a speculative prediction about an as-yet unwritten story.
Thanks very much, Jiggy. This is exactly it.
The funny thing is, if there were a Ledhceb Test, the story would almost certainly flat-out fail—it's just a matter of where the characters are sorted. Aside from the forest girls, everyone's really mixed around. The one consistent pair of guys who would have any reason to have frequent dealings with each other are the villain and his lieutenant, and the lieutenant is, well, mute. The story is really female-centric.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody should listen to Kobold Cleaver, he's just a Nuance Crusader.
Also, rereading my response to Orf, it comes off as very "writer arguing with reviewers on Goodreads"-ish. Sorry about that. Really, the most pertinent point is just the first paragraph: Because I only posted what I felt was relevant, the characters come across as very "cardboard".
That said, one-sentence summaries are a very common test of story quality in writing, and I was a bit surprised Orf hadn't run into them before.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody should listen to Kobold Cleaver, he's just a Nuance Crusader.
I have no idea what this means but I'm going to assume it involves Cutie Mark Crusaders.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Orf, I don't think you really understand writing if you think "being able to reduce to a sentence = cardboard". I explained solely what was relevant to the discussion so people wouldn't think I was just after an excuse to talk about my script.
But the reason's that you give for why your characters will "fail" is because having them talk to each other is outside the bounds of that single sentence.
The story is a romance. Therefore, the primary focus of both the main characters is the romance.
And have they no secondary foci? Then they're cardboard.
ETA:
That said, one-sentence summaries are a very common test of story quality in writing, and I was a bit surprised Orf hadn't run into them before.
One-sentence summaries are good tests of plot quality, not so much of character depth. Depth, in turn, is roughly the degree to which a character can't be summarized in a single sentence. As much as anything, the Bechdel test is about whether a story has lots of deep female characters -- if it fails, it's either because there aren't enough deep female characters (so they can't talk to each other), or because there are female characters but they exist only one-dimensionally, in relationship to the men.
If your female lead doesn't have any interests outside of her romance, that's a depth issue. If your female lead doesn't have any opportunities to talk to other (deep) female characters, that's a casting issue. If neither of those are issues, then passing the Bechdel test is fairly easy, because the characters who have something to talk about will usually talk about it at some point.
I'm guessing you got ninja'd by all the clarifications, Orf, so I'm gonna hold off on responding to that for now.
