Is the Peanuts Movie director right?
what is he even upset about here?
what's wrong with the phrase "strong female character"? how is that an offensive term?
>mansplaining
>people are getting fed up of liberal tropes
>let's change semantics
it's so typical. I bet he's beating himself up for not thinking up "PoC"
>>63088584
He's right. I'm legitimately surprised.
>>63088748
Well of coursh, pirates of the caribbean was amazing
>>63088636
Strong woman and woman are one and the same.
>Holywood is so afraid of creating original, great roles for Women that they're opting for gender swapping instead
>>63088584
Literally a fuckface. Tell him to produce cunny and stop being a sjw faggot. Women are not strong. That's the illusion.
>>63088584
>Paul Feig, instead of using the term "all-female reboot" can you instead say "Original and well written film" and start making any?
>>63088748
pickers of cotton?
bit racist desu
This is kinda like how "feminism" should really mean egalitarianism, but its dumb name fucks up how people interpret it.
"Strong female character" keeps meaning superhero lady
>>63089038
Yehhhh boyyyy
>>63088584
He didn't direct The Peanuts Movie.
also
>man asking that feminist terminology be changed
>has produced four Melissa McCarthy movies
Yeah, get fucked Feig.
If it keeps them happy, just have a standalone female character in every movie who is awesome and perfect for the role of being that character.
Then men can go about the business of making great films around them.
It's not about the character being a strong person, but the character being "strong" meaning it's well-written and well-developed.
How the fuck does a movie director of all people not get this?
paul should try to hire some male actors once in a while.
>>63088748
>let's change semantics
This is a marketing tactic. When a product no longer sells well, rename it and resell it.
A good character, whether male or female, should ALWAYS be a goal, not just when it'll get you praise.
>>63089539
Or maybe they should just make even the smallest effort to understand what the fuck they're talking about before popping off at the mouth about it. THAT might actually be better.
Paul Feig?
moar liek Paul Fag amirite
>>63088584
but great roles for women is as empty as a strong female character.
what is a great role? is it an easy role? is it a memorable role?nothing says a great role has to be a well written one.
Does "strong female character" these days just mean "woman who pops in every other sentence to sass the men"?
>>63089440
I have read number of books like that (some by brandon sanderson) double pov just fucks up the pacing and makes you impatient to get to the character you do care about.
>>63089539
because people don't see how you can be well-written and well-developed while being a passive entity in a story
>>63088584
because women are weak
>>63088584
Paul Fieg is the new Judd Apatow.
>>63088584
I'll consider his point if he honestly, and without assuming immediately that his topic of debate is just a "given", answers a very simple question. Why?
I have yet to hear a reason why we need more female anything that doesn't get it's impetus from liberal internet echo chamber propaganda. I have yet to hear an IRL woman say something to the effect of, "that movie would've been better if there were more women" or "that female role wasn't strong enough".
Can one of you libtards find a valid reason?
>>63090179
>I have yet to hear an IRL woman say something to the effect of, "that movie would've been better if there were more women" or "that female role wasn't strong enough".
One of my friends' sisters says she realy enjoyed the inserted female character in The Hobbit and hopes they do it more often in other movies, and she isn't stupid either.
The mindset absolutely does exist.
>>63089049
perpetrators of crime
>>63088584
>>63088636
He's not saying its offensive. He's saying there are great parts for females that are not the typical strong female character.
I will leave this top part of my post but as I got ready to name an example I couldn't think of anything.
>>63090298
But really, "strong female character" is not referring to "strong females". The "strong" is referring to the "character" part. They don't need to be actually physically strong, just well-formed.
On a sidenote; Feig is a massive vagina. I actually really would like to see more women in good film roles, but the amount that Feig talks about this shit doesn't make sense. He has a dick. Why does he get so mad about this shit? He uses every chance he gets to complain about it. I don't get men like that. What's in it for him?
>>63090475
>They don't need to be actually physically strong, just well-formed
Are you retarded? It obviously means a character as in one that stands up for herself. Name a movie where a woman has the lead and she plays a person like for example Jamie Foxx in the Soloist
Strong and independent is code for 'Doesn't need a man'. And since we all know that women are totally dependent on men, every time we see one of these bitches in film it rings untrue. It's bad storytelling and negatively effects ticket sales.
>>63089126
Spy was fucking hilarious. Bridesmaids a shit.
>>63089487
I think that sometimes the idea of a strong female character is misinterpreted by the media and artists. Hence shows like Supergirl, which beats the viewer round the face every thirty seconds with some tired tumblr soundbite about girl power.
>>63088584
"Strong" is not a feminine trait. Let women be feminine in movies, and there will be plenty of roles.
I've got a better idea.
How about we stop trying to dictate to writers what type of roles they should write and who they should write them for and let them just, I dunno, write?
>>63090735
This is 100% true. It's the modern version of the romance novel. Women fantasize about somehow being this "fuck hot dudes whenever I feel like it, make my own way, bow to no one" meme-person but in real life there are very, very few that truly "don't need no man". This isn't female specific and it isn't a weakness. We've taken the fact that everyone is essentially looking for a complementary character to their natural strengths and weaknesses and turned it into a made up sign of weakness for one gender. It's pointless and ridiculous.
My last girlfriend was a doctoral student while I was dating her. Almost everyone in her cohort was female. I got to know quite a few of them very well. These were a bunch of women who once they graduated, were going to make 100k+ during their internships/postdocs and between 150-200k once those were done. There wasn't A SINGLE ONE of them who didn't identify the thing they really missed/wanted at that stage in their lives as a husband/family. Not a one.
This is why the "stronk wymuns" meme is just that. It isn't a real thing.
