Oh please. Sarah Conner and Ellen Ripley would both be getting ripped to shreds by the right if they came out today!
Horsecrap. We liked -- and
still like -- these characters because, as I said, they are relatable, and plausibly human. They had weaknesses. Sarah Connor was "the valley girl cheerleader" only in the first movie. And she would have died without Reese's help. After that, knowing what she knew, she toughened up, learned to survive and how to fight, but it took years, and it came at great cost. She alienated her son, got herself locked up in a loony bin, and even after she was broken out, nearly murdered Miles Dyson she was so far gone.
Ripley? She
barely survived the first movie, and she did not "a better Marine than the Marines" -- she needed Hicks to save her and Newt from being implanted by a face-hugger, and the
marines did 90% of the fighting and dying. Ripley only gets her badass moment at the climax, when she fights the queen using the loader.
Contrast that with what they do today. Take Rey: she's a Mary Sue because
from the get go she's the toughest, baddest, most capable, etc. She can fly and repair the
Millennium Falcon better than Han Solo, despite no apparent spaceflight experience. She learns to use the Force and outfight Kylo Ren without a lick of training -- so she out-jedis Luke Skywalker.
Everyone likes her. She never has to struggle. She never has to pay a heavy cost for anything. She's a classic Mary Sue.
Ditto Captain Marvel. Ditto Jessica Walters. Ditto Batwoman. They never have character flaws, and never have to struggle the way the heroines (and heroes) we actually like do. But they
are often smug, and unlikable, and when audiences (predictably) don't like them, their woke writers whine and blame "toxic fandom."
reply
share
e3e34ifj (1359)
6 months ago
It's all nostalgia. You liked -- and still like -- those characters because of nostalgia.
Case and point? When Terminator: Dark Fate (better known as Terminator: Woke Fate to the Fox crowd), the film was lambasted overwhelmingly by the Trumpers due to all the "wokeness", some of which heavily came from the fact that Sarah Connor had returned and was able to defeat the Terminators. It was now "woke" for Sarah Connor to be kicking ass in 2019.
But wait...why was it okay in 1984 for 17-year-old Sarah to beat a Terminator with ZERO training, and why was it okay when she did it again in T2, but now it's "woke" for hardened badass Sarah to beat a Terminator in TDF? I'll gladly tell you why: no more nostalgia to cloud the right mob. Go back and scour the Dark Fate message boards from 2019 to see the proof. This is all of the proof I need to know that, had T1 and/or T2 come out in 2023, the right mob would've torn them to shreds. It was perfectly fine in 1984 and 1991, but it's suddenly pushing an agenda in 2019.
"Sarah Connor was"the valley girl cheerleader only in the first movie. And she would have died without Reese's help." And yet, she did not die. She survives several attacks from the T-800 and is ultimately the one who kills it, all while still being the valley girl cheerleader. You see how the right wouldn't like this now?
"and the marines did 90% of the fighting and dying." That's exactly the problem. How could these tough, highly-trained marines die but an untrained female succeeds after picking up a machine gun for the first time? Makes ZERO sense, and the right would pick that shit apart INSTANTLY in 2023. These are the same people that got upset that a fishwoman was black and not a white ginger.
"Ripley only gets her badass moment at the climax, when she fights the queen using the loader." This too would get picked apart by the right because how can some female magically know how to use technology decades ahead of her time?
reply
share
Darren (1159)
6 months ago
Your BS handwaves and misrepresentations demonstrate you aren't even listening.
why was it okay in 1984 for 17-year-old Sarah to beat a Terminator with ZERO training
SHE. DIDN'T.
I pointed this out already. Reese did. He blew its legs off and crippled it, at the cost of his own life, after saving her repeatedly throughout the movie. She just crawled away (barely) and pushed a button on a machine.
why was it okay when she did it again in T2
SHE. DIDN'T.
Did you actually watch the movie? Because I seem to remember her being impaled through the shoulder and about to be killed, with the T-800 appeared in the nick of time to blow the T-1000 into the vat of molten steel. She would have died. She was doing well just to keep ahead of the thing up to that point. She was
not the one who killed it.
How could these tough, highly-trained marines die but an untrained female succeeds after picking up a machine gun for the first time?
Again, did you actually watch the movie? They died because they were on the front line; Ripley was behind them being protected for most of the movie. Then they all ran away through the ducts, and Gorman and Vasquez bought them time with their lives. Ripley, again, is being shielded by the combat vets at this point.
...because how can some female magically know how to use technology decades ahead of her time?
Because she DOESN'T "magically" know. Her profession was crew member of a
cargo ship, and she was trained how to use those loaders. She outright tells Sgt. Apone "I can drive that loader. I have a class 2 rating." If your argument is that conservatives don't think females can be trained to operate machinery, just shut the fuck up. Don't even try.
You are ignoring what you don't want to hear, misrepresenting your facts, and being willfully obtuse. Your arguments are
stupid.
reply
share
Martoto (4340)
11 days ago
Correct.
The assholes who produced the Aliens films did lots of market research for both Alien and Aliens. They wanted to know how having the surviving, heroic lead character being a woman harmed or enhanced their box office chances. Although it didn't harm the box office, when asked, male participants said most often that they thought it would probably have been better if it was a guy. Even though their impact was minimal, those opinions and feelings were common, when asked.
The difference is that in the past twenty years, interested parties and losers on the internet have weaponised those opinions.
reply
share