Given how regularly we get people rush in to tell us that we cannot question anything from outside the USA because of cultural reasons (never mind that neither of us is from the USA, or even near it) – this is kind of darkly hilarious.
Apparently Nintendo’s judgement is only unquestionable as long as they’re pandering to entitled straight men – as soon as that stops it’s an evil conspiracy to censor video games involving one or more of the following:
Everyone in politics from religious conservatives to liberal activists
“the Internet police”
The developers not “wanting the game to succeed”
the singular group of people who are the only ones who ever have concerns (except about censorship?)
Numerous groups zealot groups unique to western culture (as if God of War III was never altered for Japanese release)
Of course, it goes without saying that one can never include pandering in these video games – even when it’s fan service labeled “fan service” it’s always there for deep artistic reasons.
Speaking of which, my favourite part of the comments was this justification and insistence that these costumes are essential in a franchise which is about going around haunted houses, taking photos of ghosts with magic cameras:
And this was a movie where I was kind of kind of excited about because it had Gamora in it!
– wincenworks
It’s one of those cases that disappoints, but doesn’t surprise me. Especially since with the first movie, not unlike with Avengers, they reduced female team member count to one, despite there being more women in the comics.
And we should be always pointing that out, for as long as it remains the status quo.
~Ozzie
As the follow up to last week’s throwback, it’s worth remembering that the general differences between men and women in mainstream media are most certainly not the result of “how things are”.
Major studios hire casting teams to generate calls like this and then carefully curate everyone who gets to be in front of a camera. Sometimes this is for specific effects (making 5′9″ Lucy Lawless look like a towering glamazon) but more often it’s just to re-enforce harmful ideals and perceptions.
It seems a popular trend in trying to defend terrible costume designs with random pictures of female wrestlers or MMA fighters. Usually accompanied by some sort of rant about how anyone who questions the perfection of these costumes is the sexist one!
Yes, there are many sexualized costumes in women’s sports. It’s not because the costumes are flawless. Rather it is a sign that female athletes often suffer under the tyranny of Creepy Marketing Guy too.
At the end of the day, justifying sexist double standards in the media by pointing to more sexist double standards in the media only showcases how wide spread the problem is.
Since we’ve just covered how plate armor can be worn by basically anyone who has the training,it’s probably good for us to address a popular defense of very suspicious dimorphism.
I feel that the most critical step to really re-inventing those characters would be to get them away from Dynamite Entertainment.
I enjoy Gail Simone’s re-invention of Red Sonja and understand there’s a balancing act with the branding and appearance. But an ongoing thing with Dynamite Entertainment is that they stockpile old characters to use them in spinoffs, mash-ups, etc.
What would really be bold – is actually re-inventing these characters without anchoring them to bad branding and design decision made in 70s (or earlier). Red Sonja has changed far more than her costume has, and not updating her appearance to reflect that hampers the comic.
At the end of the day – the reason these properties got sold to Dynamite Entertainment and the reason this is the second time Red Sonja’s been re-invented since then is because the old branding isn’t speaking to audiences today.
– wincenworks
So, a year ago I expressed that I was less than excited about Dynamite’s “commitment” to reinventing a bunch of heroines including Red Sonja as less they hyper-sexualized. Now to be fair, they release the new Volume 3 run… a whole six issues of it! (FYI, Volume 2 got 21 issues and Volume 1 got 81 issues before getting rebooted)
However starting next year they’re going to be starting a Volume 4 run! Want to see the amazingly creative ideas they’ve got to take the title in a whole new direction unlike anything else in comics?
Not only does this article have a brilliant title, it also explains very well the false dychotomy of feminist media criticism.
Notable quotes:
We’ve fallen into an all-or-nothing rut with feminist criticism lately. Battle lines are immediately drawn between movies that are “feminist” (i.e. “good”) and “sexist” (i.e. “bad”). And that simplistic breakdown is hurting our ability to actually talk about this stuff.
Feminist criticism isn’t about ripping something to shreds or making others feel guilty for liking it. It’s simply about pointing out a specific creative weakness and then taking that a step further to explain the real-world social ramifications of that weakness, all in the hopes of dissuading future filmmakers from making the same mistake.
I dedicate this article to every single person who ever implied that by criticizing female character designs, we’re apparently disapproving of the whole product those characters are featured in*.
Cause, again:
~Ozzie
*Sometimes we do, but it takes some special levels of terribad to make us write off the whole product, not only its treatment of female characters.
On a related note, it’s also crucial to remember that being critical of things like video games or comics does not mean someone’s not invested in “real world issues” and should discuss them instead.
Not only does this article have a brilliant title, it also explains very well the false dychotomy of feminist media criticism.
Notable quotes:
We’ve fallen into an all-or-nothing rut with feminist criticism lately. Battle lines are immediately drawn between movies that are “feminist” (i.e. “good”) and “sexist” (i.e. “bad”). And that simplistic breakdown is hurting our ability to actually talk about this stuff.
Feminist criticism isn’t about ripping something to shreds or making others feel guilty for liking it. It’s simply about pointing out a specific creative weakness and then taking that a step further to explain the real-world social ramifications of that weakness, all in the hopes of dissuading future filmmakers from making the same mistake.
I dedicate this article to every single person who ever implied that by criticizing female character designs, we’re apparently disapproving of the whole product those characters are featured in*.
Cause, again:
~Ozzie
*Sometimes we do, but it takes some special levels of terribad to make us write off the whole product, not only its treatment of female characters.
On a related note, it’s also crucial to remember that being critical of things like video games or comics does not mean someone’s not invested in “real world issues” and should discuss them instead.
