The Big Picture: Blecch, Dull Tests

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Abomination:
Isn't that a tautology though? It's pointless on an individual level but is a good test for seeing how many of the whole pass itself?

It's like using a ruler that's only good for measuring the number of things that have been measured by the ruler. It's pointless.

It doesn't work on an individual level because once certain decisions are made about story and characters during the conception/writing phase a movie can fail even if it's conscientious about avoiding sexism and is generally competent in its execution; it fails the test but is still good (the reverse is also true, although we're talking about a small fraction of movies that even pass the test to begin with so there will not be that many examples).

It works as a whole because it draws attention to the cultural bias influencing those early decisions regardless of the eventual success/failure of the movie in being good from either a feminism/sexism perspective or as a piece of cinema.

Uhura:
Yeah. I wish Bob had really emphasized the fact that the test doesn't say anything about the quality of individual movies but that it's useful if you want to look at general trends in film making. Maybe he could have made a 10 minute bonus video where he just repeats that point over and over again. Because I'm 80% sure, that we will yet again see an influx of people who don't know how the test works but are still infuriated by the test.

Well, while he didn't repeat it for ten minutes, Bob did take a couple of moments to emphasize the test's "purpose".

So if anyone does complain about the test, without bringing up those parts, we'll know that they didn't really watch it.

OT: :) Cool episode Bob. Didn't know the history of the test.

Also, while I like the idea of a Mako Mori test, it kind of goes against your first point at the start. Kind of.
It at least can be used far better, for individual movies.

lastjustice:

I'd just prefer people set out to make best damn movies they want to make, and let social stuff sort itself out along the way. If gets aided, bonus, but I don't go to the movies to feel smug about what films I watched "reached" some social awareness based off a random rule. I go to have a good time and be entertained.

I think that's where most people stand. It's just a small minority of people who think of these things as sexist or whatever. They're just really really loud and obnoxious.

Therumancer:
Well, the problem I have with this "test" is that it ironically winds up excluding almost all movies made by women for women, the classic "chick flicks" which make a fortune at the box office by giving women what they want. Women tend to be a lot more relational than men when it comes to movies and what they want, guys tend to not really care all that much if there is a romance subplot or not, women on the other hand are rarely interested if there isn't one that at least has some focus. What's more a lot of the "strong female characters" mentioned here like Sarah Connor, rarely seem to make many women's list of the characters that they relate to. To geeks she's cool because she's one of the quintessential female action heroes, doing the kinds of things that you would normally see a male protagonist doing, but that doesn't actually make her all that appealing to women, who do indeed produce their own action heroes and such, but it tends to be done a little differently.

Excuse me? You are not a woman so please do not try to tell me what woman want or how women think. I, as a woman, am always tickled whenever a movie or a book doesn't have a romantic subplot. You know why all these movies have romance in them and are marketed towards women? Because that's what men think we want. We don't. I want action and adventure and maybe some cool friendships. And newsflash, most romantic comedies are written and directed by men.

PlasmaCow:
I wonder if Zero Dark Thirty passes? After all it is a movie in which nearly every conversation is about one male terror suspect or another (or just straight up about Bin Laden), yes the majority of it is told from over the shoulders of two female characters.

If two women are talking about how they want to murder the crap out of a man, they are still talking about a man. The bechdel test makes no distinction if the men in question are the women's mortal enemies, or rivals.

The Bechdel test never did make a lot of sense to me for a lot of those reasons, but none so much as a misunderstanding of film storytelling. Films try and capture a story in 2 hours or less, so no matter how long the cast list, few characters are there for and with development, but there to move the plot along, be funny, or provide exposition. It's like that moment in the Matrix where you start seeing characters get killed off, and you realize you don't care because you only got their ame by that point. They existed only to get killed. No, the Pacific Rim Scientists weren't given deep stories and personalities. They were maguffin inventing comic relief. It tried to make a fair point about lack of female representation in more dominant roles, but did so by denigrating the idea of supporting cast.

Flash forward to today and it almost seems like a laughable idea to the point I put it in with sex appeal as something used more to dismiss good female portrayals on a flimsy concept. It's not as you say that there can't be metrics, but the idea that these are the chosen ones, and the result is the dismissal of solo females for something that can be full of misogyny but two women talked about the weather, seems bass ackwards. Of course, the internet is now full of people that think a wikipeida search is too much work, so they like their metrics simple, easy to identify, and understand, and these came pre made. Best of all: it's pass / fail, which means you can totally dismiss any half measure taken to please you if your standards aren't met, and continue with the self-rightous anger.

I mean, I don't want to stereotype anyone, but I've made no secret of my frustration that the gender discussion is so dominated by things gotten wrong than things done right, and I don't see a use of Bechdel to do anything but strike off something that is in large accounts good, because an imperfection ruins everything.

In my opinion, we need to be asking why more good movies aren't passing the test. Women keep our culture and our society strong. It is important not to minimize or rationalize arguments that make them stronger. It is true good quality movies typically fail the test, but I think that is the point. We need more movies striving to pass the test, and how do we do that except by putting pressure on executives.

Also, your strong female lead argument is BS, and they only fulfill a strong female lead in terms of a 13 year old boy. Most women don't know who Sarah Conner is, and that is because she simply does not matter to most women, regardless of how strong she seems to men. She is a manifestation of a male super hero superimposed on a female character. That does not make her a strong female lead. Sorry Bob, you have no business in telling women who they should view as strong female characters.

shellshock3d:

Therumancer:
Well, the problem I have with this "test" is that it ironically winds up excluding almost all movies made by women for women, the classic "chick flicks" which make a fortune at the box office by giving women what they want. Women tend to be a lot more relational than men when it comes to movies and what they want, guys tend to not really care all that much if there is a romance subplot or not, women on the other hand are rarely interested if there isn't one that at least has some focus. What's more a lot of the "strong female characters" mentioned here like Sarah Connor, rarely seem to make many women's list of the characters that they relate to. To geeks she's cool because she's one of the quintessential female action heroes, doing the kinds of things that you would normally see a male protagonist doing, but that doesn't actually make her all that appealing to women, who do indeed produce their own action heroes and such, but it tends to be done a little differently.

Excuse me? You are not a woman so please do not try to tell me what woman want or how women think. I, as a woman, am always tickled whenever a movie or a book doesn't have a romantic subplot. You know why all these movies have romance in them and are marketed towards women? Because that's what men think we want. We don't. I want action and adventure and maybe some cool friendships. And newsflash, most romantic comedies are written and directed by men.

To me it sounds like your basically saying "I am an exception, and thus the rule is wrong", alas it does not work like that. There will always be exceptions to everything, and like it or not what I'm saying happens to be the truth. Whether you and Bob like the idea of statistics and numbers, and the point that human behaviors can be quantified, defined, controlled, and/or modified doesn't change the fact that it's true. In this case, it's simple sociology of a sort that's been being exploited by advertisers and creators for years. Women can be lumped together as a group, and products created that will sell to them based on common threads that will appeal to the majority, leading to the way things play out in movies, fiction, etc. Not to mention that the point is indeed reinforced by what women themselves create, such as when you decide to talk a walk down the romance section of a bookstore. When it comes to movies and TV, sure the screenplay might have been done by a guy, but oftentimes women are the producers or the original creators, with the work oftentimes being based off of a romance novel, or in some cases commissioned by an actress (who also acts as one of the producers) to act as a vehicle for her, and put out a movie she knows will have appeal to women and she can collect a direct share of the profits from.

I do get where your coming from, your saying "I don't resemble that stereotype", and that's fine, I believe you, but that simply makes you unusual, it in no way impacts what I'm saying.

It's sort of like a black person getting all upset about stereotypes in the media and pointing out how much they differ from the norm. In the meantime when an ad firm wants to sell a product to black America he whips out the sports stars, hip hop, and gangsta rap, and generally succeeds by playing the numbers. In comparison if he advertises based on the perception encouraged by "this is not true" internet rants, money is going to be lost.

People as a whole can be broken down into groups ethnic, gender, subcultures, etc. As much as one might argue an individual can vary, the bigger the groups get the more alike they become until you wind up with a lot of trends that create the stereotypes, which are then exploited to create the products and the advertising used to sell them.

See, if more women were like you, then things would be different, and things would be marketed differently, but they are not. This is why the trends in movies, and products directed largely at women continue the way they are, and why the "Blechdel test" is ultimately irrelevant.

Sure a lot of people might jump on me for saying this, but let's be honest, sociology exists for a reason, and much as people might want to deny it, it works. Along with it's sister science psychology, people wind up being very predictable at the end of the day. We're advanced enough to resent this, but consider with the right knowledge, things like hypnosis and high end deprogramming/brainwashing methods can be used to literally program a person... almost like a computer.

I'm fairly tired, so hopefully this is coherent, and fairly polite despite what I perceive as a rather heated response, since I don't want to start some kind of brawl or derail this thread. If it helps, Bob does agree with you. In my case however, I do believe that I can speak ABOUT women as a group without being one myself, as that is the root of sociology. For good or ill, it should also be noted that these same tables can be turned on me with a similar degree of truth in other types of discussions.

This is one test about one element in media. One should not expect it to be an indicator of quality on its own. That should be obvious.

Imp Emissary:

Uhura:
Yeah. I wish Bob had really emphasized the fact that the test doesn't say anything about the quality of individual movies but that it's useful if you want to look at general trends in film making. Maybe he could have made a 10 minute bonus video where he just repeats that point over and over again. Because I'm 80% sure, that we will yet again see an influx of people who don't know how the test works but are still infuriated by the test.

Well, while he didn't repeat it for ten minutes, Bob did take a couple of moments to emphasize the test's "purpose".

So if anyone does complain about the test, without bringing up those parts, we'll know that they didn't really watch it.

Kinda looks like we have several of those on the last few pages then. Sigh.

Redd the Sock:
I mean, I don't want to stereotype anyone, but I've made no secret of my frustration that the gender discussion is so dominated by things gotten wrong than things done right, and I don't see a use of Bechdel to do anything but strike off something that is in large accounts good, because an imperfection ruins everything.

The point of the test is not to damn or dismiss the movies that don't pass. It is just a way to bring attention to how women are often portrayed in movies. That's it. It's ok to fail the test.

OT: As I already said in the earlier Bechdel thread this month, it seems to me that people who dislike feminists/feminism are the ones who take this test way too seriously and get upset when films they like don't pass. The Bechdel test is not a test for sexism. It's a test that brings attention to a common trend in the way women are portrayed in movies, but it doesn't comment on the quality of individual films. There is no need to get upset about the test.

Seriously... it's like watching people get angry that a hammer is bad tool for cutting trees down and then telling everyone what a shitty tools hammers are and how useless they are. Why not use the tool what it's meant for? (Hint: the Bechdel test is not not a useful tool for analyzing how feminist/sexist individual characters/movies are. It doesn't mean that the test is completely useless. The test works just fine for its intended purpose, to point out a trend in filmmaking.)

Abomination:
Isn't that a tautology though? It's pointless on an individual level but is a good test for seeing how many of the whole pass itself?

It's like using a ruler that's only good for measuring the number of things that have been measured by the ruler. It's pointless.

It's really not a complicated concept here. You can have good movies that don't pass, you can have lousy movies that do; that's not in debate in the slightest. But the fact that there's so many movies that fail it highlights a huge problem in the movie industry. Seriously, this is bare-minimum "recognizing that females are actually people" stuff here.

Thought experiment: reverse the test. A movie that has to have at least two men that talk to eachother about something other than a woman. You could probably count recent movies that fail it on one hand, and I suspect I'm being generous.

Edit: Uhura said it better in the post just before mine.

MatsVS:
Surprised how completely Bob missed the point here. The test is a tool to determine the quantity of female characters, not the quality. No one ever claimed differently, so not really sure what the point here is supposed to be.

Actually Bob's point was how many people treat the test as if it did somehow measure quality. Furthermore you could have a movie with an all female cast talking about their men problems for the whole picture and it would fail the test so it is not even a measure of quantity.

Vamast:
feminism? why not equalism

Because the term was used as an insult to those favoring female suffrage during the first wave of feminism in the United States. When the second wave came about, they turned the insult into a banner of pride.

Kinda like how Gay men still use the pink triangle as a symbol even though it was first used by the Nazis to identify homosexuals in the concentration camps.

History is a wonderful thing. :)

I personally think Bob missed the best criticism about this test.

Would it not almost certainly fail any story that has any number of female protagonists if it also has a main male antagonist?

LifeCharacter:

canadamus_prime:
Yes, but that's hardly news. Besides, as Bob pointed out, many films that fail the stupid test have great depictions of women and many that pass have piss poor depictions of women so it really doesn't prove much.

Well it's a good thing that the test has absolutely nothing to do with how the women are depicted, otherwise everyone complaining about how bad movie X passes while good movie Y fails might actually have a point. It only exists to point out a lack of female characters in movies and the industry as a whole, not how well they're depicted.

As for a lack of female characters not being news, well no it's not, but most people probably don't really think about it all that much if at all (I know I really didn't), which would make a test that points out just how bad it is rather valuable.

Well I would think having well characterized female characters would be more important than having a surplus of shallow stock female characters, 'cause you could certainly pass this stupid test by having a whole bunch of those. Just have a couple of shallow ditzy high school cheerleaders with no depth or character just chatting to each other about shoes and BAM! Past the stupid test.

Headbiter:
Oh sweet mother of god.

Bob....I disagreed with you from time to time. Sometimes, I wholeheartedly agreed.

Now I can't emphasize it enough:

T-H-A-N-K Y-O-U!

This and the rest of this post bring up basically everything I was going to say, which is great since I'm tired and about to pass out and now I don't have to write it, so cool, thanks, Headbiter.

Seriously, it's gotten to the point where I start feeling a headache form when people start having "serious" discussions about a movie's Bechdel score. Just. Gah.

Smilomaniac:
Why mention, defend or explain it at all?

I usually don't, but when articles like the one that popped up on here recently start throwing around terms like "the Bechdel Test for sexism" it draws a lot of wrath from people who mistake it for part of some big "feminist agenda" and they start making assumptions about what people like me think. That's when I step in to try to defend my position and try to set the record straight/put people's minds at rest, not to defend the test itself.

Here's the thing people(as in masses and groups, not individuals) hate about feminists: They don't like getting told what to think.

proceeds to tell me that I'm doing feminism wrong and tell me what to do

Ironic, much?

And stop saying "we" as in feminists or some subgroup of feminists. Think for yourself and don't limit your character, convictions and values to what others think of feminism. People don't care that you're a feminist, they care about the people in their immediate vicinity.

Cheers, anonymous person on the internet. You completely missed what I was saying, plus "stop saying..." implies that I regularly do what you accuse me of. Not the case. And anyway, had it occurred to you that perhaps I care that I'm a feminist? I'm not going to stop calling myself a feminist any more than I'm going to stop calling myself a gamer, or a Tolkien fan or any number of other things that reflect some of my interests and/or beliefs.

Actually, I'm very much anti the "feminism as some kind of monolith" perspective. You'll usually hear me talking about "my feminism" or "my interpretation of feminism." The "we" in my comment wasn't referring to feminists, it was referring to a few people on these forums (some of whom may or may not have been feminists) who tried to explain what the test was when people started raging against it on the assumption that it was some feminist censorship tool.

So not seeing why Tendo couldn't have been a lady.
http://tarteauxfraises.tumblr.com/post/56818631713

But it is kinda getting past the point that it shouldn't be odd for movies to pass this test. Not all movies have to pass it, but considering that women are half of the population it shouldn't be that hard. TV shows pass it all the time. Even TV shows about predominantly male careers(like cop dramas) pass it all the time and no one blinks. No one considers it odd that say Bones has more than one female forensic scientist. And it isn't odd when they talk to each about the cases. What's holding movies up?

GrimoireOfAlice:
I personally think Bob missed the best criticism about this test.

Would it not almost certainly fail any story that has any number of female protagonists if it also has a main male antagonist?

No, the film would pass as long as at least one of their conversations wasn't about him (even if it wasn't important to the plot).

I also think that this video was criticising the view of the Bechdel test as an objective, definitive "is this film sexist?" test which films pass or fail. A criticism of this view held by supporters and detractors of the test.

The test can tell us something interesting but is very broad strokes and shallow as a test of an individual film. It's best used as a test of the film industry as a whole and not of individual films, e.g. what percentage of major blockbusters pass or fail in the last decade compared to the 70s. As always when you're talking about social issues like sexism, racism etc. it's an issue in society overall and not about individual cases.

JarinArenos:

Abomination:
Isn't that a tautology though? It's pointless on an individual level but is a good test for seeing how many of the whole pass itself?

It's like using a ruler that's only good for measuring the number of things that have been measured by the ruler. It's pointless.

It's really not a complicated concept here. You can have good movies that don't pass, you can have lousy movies that do; that's not in debate in the slightest.

So it's a terribly flawed system that has many false positives and false negatives. Unreliable and prone to missing the spirit of its own conception... yet somehow it's being considered a "good measure" of something? Sorry, but that's just flat out hogswash. When you measure something with an unreliable ruler the more and more things you measure with it the less accurate and useful that data becomes.

But the fact that there's so many movies that fail it highlights a huge problem in the movie industry. Seriously, this is bare-minimum "recognizing that females are actually people" stuff here.

Oh come on. Everyone fucking believes women are people. Don't start throwing that hogswash around.

Thought experiment: reverse the test. A movie that has to have at least two men that talk to eachother about something other than a woman. You could probably count recent movies that fail it on one hand, and I suspect I'm being generous.

That doesn't make the test valuable. Art reflects society, and in society there are a lot of male dominated fields with very high danger and risk that make for very interesting films... so naturally there are going to be more movies that have more males and sometimes even exclusively males.

The test is pointless, inaccurate and a poor measure of -anything- beyond itself.

mecegirl:
So not seeing why Tendo couldn't have been a lady.
http://tarteauxfraises.tumblr.com/post/56818631713

Any character in Pacific Rim, other than Hanibal Chau, could have been female character with next to no changes. Incidentally Hanibal Chau is the only character that really suits this movie 100%. I would not like any changes done to that character and I don't know any actress taht can pull off Ron Perlman. Heck, I know maybe 2 other male actors I would like to see in that role.

But that is not the issue with this movie or this episode of "The Big Picture"

Vamast:
feminism? why not equalism

It's pronounced "egalitarianism".

SnakeTrousers:

... enlistment was restricted to men until fairly recently (and still is in much of the world).

Because they make better killers.

Movie Bob has an impressive proclivity for saying something true and positive in the worst possible way.

On the bright side both tests provide a good reason to never watch a Michael Bay film.

This is a really good point and I'm glad Bob pointed it out, but I do think there is one issue that he didn't quite hit in the Bechdel rating's favor: Many movies with a good female character stories still disturbingly lack in female representation. More often than not, a movie will have a predominantly male cast, even if there is one break out female character in it. That's not to say that all movies need equal casting of both genders, but when it almost always goes one way (especially when you get into big budget movies) that inequality is important. Passing the Bechdel test doesn't mean a movie ISN'T sexist, but failing it does indicate a probable skew.

Again, I do like that BOB points out that the Bechdel test is good for looking at the movie industry as a whole and that's true. It doesn't point out all movies with a sexist attitude and it doesn't give credit to movies with a notable/admirable female character. Even so, it should not be ignored that it does say something about movies that are supposedly feminist... many of them are still pretty heavy with men.

It shouldn't be a test to determine if you see a movie, but it is one of many "tests" one can look at to examine the movie industry in a different light. Beacause, believe it or not, there are still many people who aren't convinced that there is that much sexist in media. I know, because it wasn't too long ago that I thought the only real prejudices were against me as a white male American.

It's an observation on trends and patterns that is ONLY useful in the aggregate, and completely worthless/pointless when applied to individual cases.

Much like Body Mass Index (BMI). But that's also similarly abused in the hands of uninformed/uninterested commenters.

Captain Pooptits:

SnakeTrousers:

... enlistment was restricted to men until fairly recently (and still is in much of the world).

Because they make better killers.

The point you seem to be getting at (with this and the rest of your earlier post) is that sexism, by and large, only exists because it is in fact correct. I wonder, do you apply this philosophy to all questions of social justice or just those involving women?

In either case, I don't think there's much for us to talk about.

Despite the almost bipolar spectrum of opinions we share Bob, this is deferentially on the agreed list. Considering I'd guess most pornos would probably pass this or worse... like Sex and The City 2...

*shudders*

Most of the net groups organising Bechdel tests haven't actually claimed the test demonstrates a movie's quality, feminist leanings or strong writing. They often specifically state that the test has no relation to those whatsoever. Yes, you would be an idiot to use the Bechdel test as a, well, acid test for movies...but most feminists don't. The people who put the chart together was simply pointing out that, for the first time, movies that passed the Bechdel test outsold those that didn't.

That definitely doesn't indicate a difference in quality or a trend towards feminism in cinema, but I argue it displays a shift in the make up of audience demographics, tastes, and the way movies are marketed. Over the past few years, big movies that try to appeal to female audiences have been more and more financially successful. That may well be the one thing you can thank Twilight for; it proved to producers that it is economically viable to spend big bucks, making movies that aim to interest women. Traditionally, the biggest budget, biggest profit movies have a tendency towards testosterone fuelled, man action, but now we are getting more sci-fi and fantasy movies - the genres traditionally reserved for young males - that put women in the spot light. Those movies are clearly getting a bigger audience share for it.

The Bechdel test is useless for examining the strengths of individual movies - it is more focussed on the broad aspects of movie making...but so are producers and studios, who are also recognising the benefits of acknowledging women as a target audience, which ultimately means providing more female characters, more interesting female stories, and hell, even sticking in more fan service for women.

Bob, thank you very much.
Never could understand why statistics should be used to evaluate how good or bad the movie was.
I love hard cold facts, but even I have to admit that one cannot evaluate piece of media objectively.
I have encountered numerous examples when dissected into pieces I would hate every single part, but together those somehow work (and also opposite situation).
But then again maintaining consistency without objective evaluation methods, is near impossible.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't :(

Furrama:
But The Croods was a terrible movie, why are you putting the "main" girl in the good list? Because she can punch good? We have how many female characters in the movie and they still can't talk about anything other than a guy? And they sold the movie like it was Brave in the stoneage, but it turned out to be all about _the dad_ and _the new young man_ and _the dad_ trying to stay relevant.

Sorry, no, just no. That one actively makes me angry.

Wow, someone certainly missed the point by a mile. Bob's entire argument is that there are plenty of good female characters out there that still fail the test, because the test was never a measure of how good a female character is to begin with. Second, there is a difference between a good movie and a movie that has good characters. Bob never said anything about the Croods being a good movie (although he said in an intermission that it was decent), he said that Eep is a good character. As for why she is a good character, it has nothing to do with "punching good". It is about her being proactive, seeking change, and being allowed to not only act as crazy and "stupid" as the rest of her family but also breaking away from stereotypical design trends for heroins. Those are all good qualities in a character.

Well Bob, you're really beginning to show your true colors here aren't you? I am not impressed. Your examples of "good" movies and "strong female characters" really shows your weakness right there. Because for all the talk of equality you spew out, you are apparently still a GUY at heart. "The godfather", "Terminator 2", "Star wars" and "Pacific rim"? Those are the movies you bring up as shining examples of good movies, good stories and good female characters?

You know how many women I know who find those movies even remotely interesting? NONE! (well, maybe star wars, but that's just for Han Solo) Because they are "GUY MOVIES". See your flaw here? You say the Bechdel test throws out "good" movies and bring up these movies to prove it? FAIL! They are not movies for women and as such, proves why you're wrong and the test is valid more than ever.

Sarah Connor is a male power fantasy with boobs. Princess Leia is a damsel in distress, and that asian chick in Pacific rim? How dare you call her storyline independent of the male characters? The fact that two(!) MALE characters has the power to decice whether to let her get in those robots at all, should be a good hint, no? Or the fact that a MALE character saves the day in the end and finishes the job, while she is sent off in an escape pod? Or the fact that she is the one that FAILS when chasing the rabbit, endangering the whole base?

You call that an independent and well written female character? Jeez, I'm really losing respect for you, man.

Gronk:
Sarah Connor is a male power fantasy with boobs.

Yes, the ordinary 19 year old waitress from L.A. turned loosely hinged PSTD psychopath that's barely hanging on to her humanity by a thread due to A) the nightmare experience of being chased down by a ruthless Terminator and B) having the knowledge of the world ending, with YOUR OWN SON (beared from some time-traveling dude you just met no less) being the only person that will be able to do anything about it.

Oh yeah, what a hawt fantasy alright.

The rest is quite frankly bizarre nitpicking, but I really had to call that particular one out. I mean if you were going to pick someone to pick on like that, at least pick Buffy or somebody, not Sarah freakin' Connor out of all characters.

[Edit] Speaking of The Terminator Franchise...

manic_depressive13:
I mean, why couldn't the Terminator look female?

Oh..oh dear, you poor soul...you've never seen Terminator 3, have you?

Well I mean if you've seen the second one, you've pretty much seen this one too *shrugs*

[Actual On Topic Now:]

So Bob's finally said what I've been saying for too long now; The Bechdel Test is a joke test, and is STILL a joke when people get so aggressively defensive of it as if it proves a damn thing. It's easily provable that it really does suck at its own mission statement pretty damn badly.

It really is much more simple than you're making it out to be. And Imma give you the secret about how to solve evvvvverything....

How female/ethnic/homosexual/etc. characters are portrayed on-screen > arbitrary, nonsensical headcounts.

Fuck the dumb checklists and focus on making an engaging, believable character that I can empathize with/sympathize with/root for or against/etc. Period. End of obnoxious text wall discussion.

I will admit this is the first time I've heard of this test. Even more shocking is the amount of films that indeed fail this test. It's not surprising many of my favorite films flunk as well. Seven, Tropic Thunder, Ferris Bueller's day off, etc. As Bob stated it does bring to light the fact women are under represented in movies, but then fails movies with strong/interesting women because it doesn't meet the test's standard.It's less a test and more of a filter. Can't say it judges a movie good or bad just gives it credit for meeting said requirement.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here