|
Post by Mystique on Mar 12, 2017 12:56:11 GMT -5
Ah, didn't catch the rest of your post until after I posted mine....
I think that in regards to your mention of the popular ones (Meg, Ellen, Jody, Rowena, Eileen), that their characters were good ideas, not that they were necessarily meant to be liked but were engaging, and agree that their initial failure's lied in their introductions.
I agree with you about Mary. I don't think her core character was even initially established in the pilot. She was a mom, who died, that's it. But was somewhat established in seasons 4 and 5. And I concur that the writing has been effecting the character negatively for many, the first listed reason. However, I do think that some of this Mary backlash is due to the second reason from the list I previously posted-"Some female viewers are also not keen on female characters being incorporated into a show and therefore will not even give them a chance"- As they have even admitted to it as they bash her.
"But the thing is that we've been with Sam and Dean for 12 seasons every episode, so we're a lot more invested in them than Mary, even though she was the first character to appear on the show, ever."
Agreed.
Just as an aside, I don't consider Mary in the same group as the ones I previously mentioned.
It's okay. I did a quick edit and addition before I went off to work this morning. The second reason is definitely in play, but while that's unreasonable in itself, there are good reasons why female fans often reject female characters out of hand, even if it seems contradictory and is not healthy over the long term. One is the aforementioned problem that female characters are often poorly written, so if someone is not putting too much thought into why that is, she (and definitely he) will simply think that women characters suck, so let's limit the number of them. Second is that part of the reason why female characters often suck is because there are much fewer of them compared to male characters. This encourages a closer and more critical scrutiny of them (they tend to stick out as an anomaly) and also reduces the likelihood of their being good female characters by simple virtue of the fact that there are fewer to choose from and they tend to group in the shallow end of the characterization pool. Fridged mommies, whiny girlfriends, and bitchy bad girls don't exactly teem with depth of feeling and charisma. Also, because there are fewer and they stick out, if a female character is a failure, that seems more disastrous than when a male character is a failure. The fans who didn't want female characters in the first place are smug at being proved right, but also irritated at having to see characters they didn't want on "their show" in the first place, while those who did want more female characters are frustrated because such characters are used as an excuse not to have more female characters in the future. Whereas, when a male character fails, it's not that big a deal, since others will appear soon enough and hopefully be better. Mitch and Retch, for example, aren't hitting it with the fans any better than Toni the Twat, but Toni's the one getting all the hate (albeit, admittedly, she really sucked). Third, Hollywood is downright and unapologetically ageist (you said you've worked in the industry, so I'm sure I didn't just tell you anything new or shocking there) *and* sexist, which means that while both actors and actresses age out of roles faster than is realistic and youth is preferred, a woman's career is generally shorter than a man's and usually caps around thirty, just when actors in general are starting to really learn their craft. This means that female roles are written young and callow, and young, inexperienced, bland (and even irritatingly lousy) girls are cast in them. Toni, Ruby and Krissy all fall into this category, as do too many Damsels in Distress of the Week. I'm currently rewatching Bewitched on Cozi TV and I'm struck by how progressive it was for the 60s--or even now. Sure, she was a housewife and there was all this silly crap about her supposed to be "obeying" her husband (though she rarely paid more than lip service to it), but there was a whole host of female characters played by experienced actresses in every episode, guest starring, regular and recurring. Sure, there were some duds but there were so many others that you were bound to find some that you liked. This is not true of most shows, including on the CW, which purports to attract young women by...doing lots of superhero shows about men and paranormal soaps in which the men are more numerous and more vivid than the women, and the lessons for young women in the audience are nasty and unhealthy. So, it kinda makes sense that some fans had no interest in Mary coming on as a regular recurring character and were not interested in giving her a chance, even if it wasn't exactly in their own best interests. I absolutely agree.
Bewitched was quite progressive. And there have been others that have pushed the norm of the time. Who's the Boss? was also another one as it swapped the gender stereotypes in a realistic and relevant way that was not just used as a gag, and the main characters were over 30. Friends had a balanced cast and the female characters were varied and fully realized individuals, sure they were stereotypical on the surface, but had depth that fleshed them out which kept them from being just cardboard cutouts used as props for the male characters. And were above 30 for a majority of the shows run. The Walking Dead (which I know you don't like) started out with stereotypical female characters that were doing their "womanly duty" in supporting the "menfolk" and I was about to hang it up by the end of season two, but I'm glad I didn't, because since season 3 it's had a diverse group of strong compelling females characters. Unfortunately, shows like those are rare.
I believe that the male to female ratio in film and TV is 4 to 1. So this show seems to go right along with the norm. And I think with this show having a smaller main cast the industry-wide norm of gender imbalance is more apparent.
Just want to add that I think Mary can become more likeable with an adjustment in the writing for her to those that dislike her now, who aren't those viewers who have refused to have even given her a chance for whatever reason. Whereas IMO the ones I listed were just bad character ideas at their core, straight out of the gate, who just happened to be female. If we were to change their gender, keeping everything else about them the same, I still wouldn't find them any more likeable and doubt others would either. So Charlie would become say Charles, Becky would become Bucky, and Anna would become IDK...Andy.
Charlie/Charles would still be a sparkly gary-stu author insert who everyone falls in love with on sight. Becky/Bucky would still be a slap in the face overly-obsessed insulting representation of fans. Anna/Andy would still be an extremist militant hater who I wouldn't be able to stand hearing blather on and on with his vitriol.
|
|
|
Post by SkeksisGirl on Mar 12, 2017 19:27:06 GMT -5
Just gotta say, I love how the thread for a circle jerk became a thread for constructive debate.
I might make a new thread with these posts in the general discussion, cause this is the kind of stuff I want in non-dead horse threads.
|
|
|
Post by thesnowleopard on Mar 13, 2017 2:01:25 GMT -5
I absolutely agree.
Bewitched was quite progressive. And there have been others that have pushed the norm of the time. Who's the Boss? was also another one as it swapped the gender stereotypes in a realistic and relevant way that was not just used as a gag, and the main characters were over 30. Friends had a balanced cast and the female characters were varied and fully realized individuals, sure they were stereotypical on the surface, but had depth that fleshed them out which kept them from being just cardboard cutouts used as props for the male characters. And were above 30 for a majority of the shows run. The Walking Dead (which I know you don't like) started out with stereotypical female characters that were doing their womanly duty in supporting the menfolk and I was about to hang it up by the end of season two, but I'm glad I didn't, because since season 3 it's had a diverse group of strong compelling females characters. Unfortunately, shows like those are rare.
I believe that the male to female ratio in film and TV is 4 to 1. So this show seems to go right along with the norm. And I think with this show having a smaller main cast the industry-wide norm of gender imbalance is more apparent.
Just want to add that I think Mary can become more likeable with an adjustment in the writing for her to those that dislike her now, who aren't those viewers who have refused to have even given her a chance for whatever reason. Whereas IMO the ones I listed were just bad character ideas at their core straight out of the gate who just happened to be female. If we were to change their gender, keeping everything else about them the same, I still wouldn't find them any more likeable and doubt others would either. So Charlie would become say Charles, Becky would become Bucky, and Anna would become IDK...Andy.
Charlie/Charles would still be a sparkly gary-stu author insert who everyone falls in love with on sight. Becky/Bucky would still be a slap in the face overly-obsessed insulting representation of fans. Anna/Andy would still be an extremist militant hater who I wouldn't be able to stand hearing blather on and on with his vitriol.
Well, Mary is basically nuBobby but without the massive psychological dysfunction. She's also, I think, juxtaposed with Rowena, a woman who was saddled with a bastard child in a time and place when that was a truly hard job. They're both parents who hurt their children, albeit Mary did it unintentionally and you can have some sympathy for Rowena. Though I couldn't really decide if she wanted to bang Dean or mother him in "Regarding Dean"! Becky was a case of a great actress stuck with some really weird material. Charlie is basically Garth as a woman and then we're told endlessly how awesome she is. Anna...probably would have worked okay if they had given more thought to her character conflict and arc. I get that they ended up giving a lot of her story to Castiel when they decided not to kill him off, but still. She wasn't a terrible character so much as having her sleep with Dean was a terrible idea, especially right off the bat, and she quickly ran out of story. Plus, I am so over Hot Superpowered Crazy Chicks. The percentage of speaking roles in film and TV, according to the latest studies (2014 and 2015) is 33.5%. So, actually, one in three: www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/22/467665890/hollywood-has-a-major-diversity-problem-usc-study-findsThe really depressing thing? That big Gay Agenda the alt-right nutjobs are always flipping out about? Is not going swimmingly. Only 2% of speaking roles are GLBT characters. Oh, and half of shows have no Asian characters, while one/fifth have no African American characters. All things considered, Supernatural actually does *better* than some other shows with larger casts. Yes, it has two white male leads, which invariably skews things, but in the four supporting leads for this season, two are women and two are GLBTQ men, and all four of that cast have been around a *long* time. We've also had two recurring Asian characters over multiple seasons (the Trans), several very popular African American cast, and two recurring lesbian characters, albeit only one of them made it longer than two episodes. Then there are Jody and her girls, and in season two, we had the Roadhouse with Ellen and Jo. Plus, of course, Ruby and Bela were recurring leads in season three (not saying they're all successful), with Ruby lasting another season. One thing the studies noted was that female presence behind the scenes usually meant more women in front of the camera and yup, SPN has that, too. Hell, it began life (first season, anyway) with three women on the staff, one of whom went on to be a showrunner. When you consider that NuWho didn't have *any* female writers, let alone showrunners, for its first nine seasons, and that it's hardly unique, that's a big deal. When SPN began its life, things were even worse. Horror was still very much a male ghetto in the mid-2000s. I should know. I was there. I was really shocked when Silvia and I put out our all-woman antho in Lovecraftian fiction (just last year, y'all) and it turned out to be the first one ever. Two other anthos have quickly followed from other houses, but those only had all-female contributors, with male editors. We were female all the way down the line, including the illustrators.
|
|
|
Post by thesnowleopard on Mar 13, 2017 2:02:49 GMT -5
Just gotta say, I love how the thread for a circle jerk became a thread for constructive debate.
I might make a new thread with these posts in the general discussion, cause this is the kind of stuff I want in non-dead horse threads.
Thanks! I dunno, though. This seems to be going pretty well where it is. Unless we want a section where we discuss just female characters.
|
|
|
Post by Mystique on Mar 13, 2017 12:00:13 GMT -5
I absolutely agree.
Bewitched was quite progressive. And there have been others that have pushed the norm of the time. Who's the Boss? was also another one as it swapped the gender stereotypes in a realistic and relevant way that was not just used as a gag, and the main characters were over 30. Friends had a balanced cast and the female characters were varied and fully realized individuals, sure they were stereotypical on the surface, but had depth that fleshed them out which kept them from being just cardboard cutouts used as props for the male characters. And were above 30 for a majority of the shows run. The Walking Dead (which I know you don't like) started out with stereotypical female characters that were doing their womanly duty in supporting the menfolk and I was about to hang it up by the end of season two, but I'm glad I didn't, because since season 3 it's had a diverse group of strong compelling females characters. Unfortunately, shows like those are rare.
I believe that the male to female ratio in film and TV is 4 to 1. So this show seems to go right along with the norm. And I think with this show having a smaller main cast the industry-wide norm of gender imbalance is more apparent.
Just want to add that I think Mary can become more likeable with an adjustment in the writing for her to those that dislike her now, who aren't those viewers who have refused to have even given her a chance for whatever reason. Whereas IMO the ones I listed were just bad character ideas at their core straight out of the gate who just happened to be female. If we were to change their gender, keeping everything else about them the same, I still wouldn't find them any more likeable and doubt others would either. So Charlie would become say Charles, Becky would become Bucky, and Anna would become IDK...Andy.
Charlie/Charles would still be a sparkly gary-stu author insert who everyone falls in love with on sight. Becky/Bucky would still be a slap in the face overly-obsessed insulting representation of fans. Anna/Andy would still be an extremist militant hater who I wouldn't be able to stand hearing blather on and on with his vitriol.
Well, Mary is basically nuBobby but without the massive psychological dysfunction. She's also, I think, juxtaposed with Rowena, a woman who was saddled with a bastard child in a time and place when that was a truly hard job. They're both parents who hurt their children, albeit Mary did it unintentionally and you can have some sympathy for Rowena. Though I couldn't really decide if she wanted to bang Dean or mother him in "Regarding Dean"! Becky was a case of a great actress stuck with some really weird material. Charlie is basically Garth as a woman and then we're told endlessly how awesome she is. Anna...probably would have worked okay if they had given more thought to her character conflict and arc. I get that they ended up giving a lot of her story to Castiel when they decided not to kill him off, but still. She wasn't a terrible character so much as having her sleep with Dean was a terrible idea, especially right off the bat, and she quickly ran out of story. Plus, I am so over Hot Superpowered Crazy Chicks. The percentage of speaking roles in film and TV, according to the latest studies (2014 and 2015) is 33.5%. So, actually, one in three: www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/22/467665890/hollywood-has-a-major-diversity-problem-usc-study-findsThe really depressing thing? That big Gay Agenda the alt-right nutjobs are always flipping out about? Is not going swimmingly. Only 2% of speaking roles are GLBT characters. Oh, and half of shows have no Asian characters, while one/fifth have no African American characters. All things considered, Supernatural actually does *better* than some other shows with larger casts. Yes, it has two white male leads, which invariably skews things, but in the four supporting leads for this season, two are women and two are GLBTQ men, and all four of that cast have been around a *long* time. We've also had two recurring Asian characters over multiple seasons (the Trans), several very popular African American cast, and two recurring lesbian characters, albeit only one of them made it longer than two episodes. Then there are Jody and her girls, and in season two, we had the Roadhouse with Ellen and Jo. Plus, of course, Ruby and Bela were recurring leads in season three (not saying they're all successful), with Ruby lasting another season. One thing the studies noted was that female presence behind the scenes usually meant more women in front of the camera and yup, SPN has that, too. Hell, it began life (first season, anyway) with three women on the staff, one of whom went on to be a showrunner. When you consider that NuWho didn't have *any* female writers, let alone showrunners, for its first nine seasons, and that it's hardly unique, that's a big deal. When SPN began its life, things were even worse. Horror was still very much a male ghetto in the mid-2000s. I should know. I was there. I was really shocked when Silvia and I put out our all-woman antho in Lovecraftian fiction (just last year, y'all) and it turned out to be the first one ever. Two other anthos have quickly followed from other houses, but those only had all-female contributors, with male editors. We were female all the way down the line, including the illustrators. I got the vibe she was a bit into him too.
Ugh, Becky was an insult, intended or not. And yes, the actress did a fine job of driving that offensive representation home.
Garth was a poorly conceived character in his own right, but he wasn't a gary-stu of epic proportions or author insert to my knowledge.
The issue I have with Anna, aside from the core of her character, is that she was meant to be connected to Dean as his Angel ally. With her militant extremist hate, which was off-putting in and of itself, and his already dislike of angels, that would just push him farther into negative territory. With Cas, he is a counter balance to Dean's opinion of his kind. Therefore IMO her character at the core and the characters intended role within the show was not a good idea. They did give her story to the Cas character, but his core character was a better choice and fit more effectively into that role.
I did take a cursory glance at that study, with all the break downs. So, I guess the needle moved a little in regards to the ratio from 4 to 1. However, is that just speaking roles, or also to their roles as main, recurring or guest to males of the same?
I, myself, am a moderate. And the extremes of both sides of the political spectrum have major issues IMO.
Having a larger and/or higher level female presence behind the scenes does usually help the female onscreen presence, I agree. However, I didn't see that translate on screen in regards to Gamble on this show. And I concur that this show has done well in trying to bring in more diverse guest and recurring characters, but in my opinion the smaller main cast of characters makes the gender imbalance more noticeable.
And I agree it certainly was more-so then, and still is to a somewhat lesser degree, a more male dominated genre.
Congrats on your antho.
|
|
|
Post by Mystique on Mar 13, 2017 12:03:15 GMT -5
Just gotta say, I love how the thread for a circle jerk became a thread for constructive debate.
I might make a new thread with these posts in the general discussion, cause this is the kind of stuff I want in non-dead horse threads.
Thanks! I dunno, though. This seems to be going pretty well where it is. Unless we want a section where we discuss just female characters. I second that Thanks. And whatever y'all decide.
|
|
|
Post by thesnowleopard on Mar 15, 2017 2:43:15 GMT -5
Those were just speaking roles. As I recall, the ratio of significant female roles is closer to your estimate (or even worse) and the ratio of female leads is downright abysmal. When most female leads are actually the male lead's love interest...yeah.
Garth was supposed to be adorably cute, despite being a clueless idjit who also said mean things (but he said them adorably and only to Dean, so...). Hence, a lot like Charlie, especially early on, when she didn't like the Brothers.
My big problem with Anna was that she was supposed to be this courageous rebel, but her rebellion didn't make much sense and she came across as selfish. They just didn't build up her motivation at all with that whole Girl, Interrupted intro. Then they decided to write out and "reprogrammed" her into a Terminator kind of character. Whatever, show.
Sera Gamble was, and is, an awful writer with regards to women. The show had several female writers from early on and I find it interesting that 1. she was the weakest and yet, she ended up the next showrunner, and 2. the misogyny on the show spiked bigtime on her watch. I think there was a little tokenism going on where they pick a person from the underrepresented group who is mediocre or even incompetent to "prove" why they shouldn't try to have more people from that group. It's especially glaring when you have actually talented people from the same group who get passed over and move on to other shows.
|
|
|
Post by Mystique on Mar 18, 2017 22:34:29 GMT -5
Those were just speaking roles. As I recall, the ratio of significant female roles is closer to your estimate (or even worse) and the ratio of female leads is downright abysmal. When most female leads are actually the male lead's love interest...yeah. Garth was supposed to be adorably cute, despite being a clueless Idjit who also said mean things (but he said them adorably and only to Dean, so...). Hence, a lot like Charlie, especially early on, when she didn't like the Brothers. My big problem with Anna was that she was supposed to be this courageous rebel, but her rebellion didn't make much sense and she came across as selfish. They just didn't build up her motivation at all with that whole Girl, Interrupted intro. Then they decided to write out and "reprogrammed" her into a Terminator kind of character. Whatever, show. Sera Gamble was, and is, an awful writer with regards to women. The show had several female writers from early on and I find it interesting that 1. she was the weakest and yet, she ended up the next showrunner, and 2. the misogyny on the show spiked bigtime on her watch. I think there was a little tokenism going on where they pick a person from the underrepresented group who is mediocre or even incompetent to "prove" why they shouldn't try to have more people from that group. It's especially glaring when you have actually talented people from the same group who get passed over and move on to other shows. I still do not see Garth being a lot like Charlie, myself, but he certainly was annoying as hell to me.
If they intended for Anna to come across as a courageous rebel, they completely missed the mark, the writing and directing certainly didn't seem to support it IMO. Her ending made sense to me as it would be a logical progression for her to eventually act on her extremist viewpoint.
I agree that Gamble was awful and tokenism could certainly explain her promotion over other, better choices, as well as the possibility that they could have actually liked her best and therefore put her forward even though she was a poor choice and consequently an incompetent showrunner. Yes, it does boggle the mind when others with greater promise are passed over.
|
|
|
Post by thesnowleopard on Mar 19, 2017 1:53:45 GMT -5
It's possible she just kissed up to Kripke more than the others. I get the impression he really likes being kissed up to.
|
|
paro
New Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by paro on Mar 19, 2017 21:46:10 GMT -5
It's possible she just kissed up to Kripke more than the others. I get the impression he really likes being kissed up to. I don't know, Snow - I got the impression that there wasn't a whole lot of love lost between Kripke and Gamble. Too much ego on both sides. And Kripke just strikes me as a "boys' club" kind of guy. I just can't see him promoting Gamble over Carver and the other men on the writing staff. I always wondered if Dawn O was actually the one who pushed for Gamble as showrunner. It sounds like her style/agenda.
|
|
|
Post by thesnowleopard on Mar 19, 2017 22:51:29 GMT -5
Maybe, but if he didn't want her around, he sure sang a pretty tune about it. That would be unusual for him. He sounded off enough about other Ostroff decisions, like her "forcing" Bela on the writers as a semi-regular in season three, and Ostroff was on her way out by season six, anyway. And he stuck around through season six (fans often forget that). The one who didn't like Gamble was Jensen, but I think that was all mutual.
Regarding Carver, he appears to have bailed after "Point of No Return" and got his own show with his wife. Ben Edlund was never terribly interested in being showrunner. Everyone else who was original to the show had left by then. Raelle Tucker, for example, said once in an interview that she left the show because she got tired of not being able to write the stories she wanted to write.
|
|
|
Post by anouck9 on Mar 20, 2017 4:01:58 GMT -5
It may be as simple as Gamble being an out and out Sam Girl. Since he was Kripke beloved avatar...That may have been enough to tell himself "oh my baby will be well treated, let's give it to Sera"
|
|
|
Post by thesnowleopard on Mar 20, 2017 12:10:32 GMT -5
It may be as simple as Gamble being an out and out Sam Girl. Since he was Kripke beloved avatar...That may have been enough to tell himself "oh my baby will be well treated, let's give it to Sera" It wouldn't surprise me in the least if it were as simple as that. That would be a huge ego stroke to Kripke.
|
|