Quote:
Originally Posted by Tactics
If there's something lack of realism that fit modern era I would criticize, I think its how the terrorist here is reasonable.
Sensible driving force? Yes. Reasonable and combat capable leader? Yes.
How could they're not blabbering about doing action in the name of god while hiding behind suicide bomber?
Not promoting change by doing pathetic stuff like throwing food to Gogh painting or something petty like breaking tons of milk in the name of vegetarians that even vegetarians didn't wanted to be associated with such actions. Mafty does feel bad to their actions at some point, and tried to clear any misunderstanding if possible. Man, if only IRL activist and terrorists are respectful like that.
Shame if this film is considered bad just because there's no sight of some super action girl.
Since when it became a generally accepted hard requirement for a good movie? I take it there's no respect to any girl and woman that serve as strong mental support to protagonist for some people nowadays. |
A good story may get away with being unrealistic; a story that romanticises terrorism cannot be good. The Maftists aren't only unlike real terrorists; they reflect the ideal image that terrorists and truly silly people have of terrorists, including those threatening election workers in America now.
Although the Maftists have neither a sensible motive nor a sensible or interesting leader. A forced worldwide migration into space is a cartoon supervillain goal. The worst politics and the worst sci-fi move people around like so much material. As I said, they might as well be throwing soup over paintings or poisoning themselves so an angel will take them all to space heaven, for all they're doing to tackle EF corruption.
Super action boys in giant robots seem to have generally been a hard requirement for Gundam (The franchise has better female characters than Gigi, but that's as much as it can say). In a military action story, without any historic reason against female soldiers, the only reason why boys are pilots and girls are love interests or haremites is popular prejudice. If men do and women support, the story implicitly repeats the old lie that women can
only support (why do I need to explain this?). That's why
Fullmetal Alchemist is so good, though far from perfect. If Kallen Stadtfeld the Gundam pilot had dropped in to support Hathaway, or Winry Rockbell to design his Gundam, or Tessa Testarossa to command his Gundam, then half the human race wouldn't have been exclusively represented by a simpering prostitute, a failed pilot and a clingy butch soon-to-be-ex-girlfriend, while pilots, captains and heroes comprise the male half.
In non-action genres, an action girl would be less needful; development, agency, respect, independence and responsibility are always more important than high kicks. This isn't only a movie with no action girl, however; its main female roles are not competent supporters but degraded failures and and sexually objectified stereotypes; writers who restrict female roles aren't even going to able to write 'traditional' women as full human beings. These criticisms - please, remember this - are never against female characters, or supportive women, but against the writers who restrict female roles to pander to popular prejudice.
It has to be mentioned that Circe turned men into pigs rather than taming beasts, and is as much of a negative female archetype as she was in
Molly's Game, another film with a poor female lead. Also, that writers who can't write women frequently can't write men so well; no one has even defended the male leads as anything other than a ridiculous male chauvinist in Kenneth, and a blank-slate harem-protagonist in Hathaway only distinguish by his involvement in Mafty's idiocy.